Core i7-660UM vs Celeron Dual-Core T3500

Core i7-660UM

2 Cores4 Thrd18 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2010

Celeron Dual-Core T3500

2 Cores2 Thrd1 WWMax: 2.1 GHz2010

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i7-660UM

2 / 4

1,279

+0.3%

Atom D2550

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

Celeron Dual-Core T3500

2 / 2

1,275

0.0%

Celeron 857

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Core i7-660UM is positioned at rank 1225 and the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is on rank 959, so the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Core i7-660UM

#1213

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

7280%

#1214

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

7174%

#1215

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

6586%

#1216

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

6556%

#1217

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

6496%

#1219

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

6273%

#1220

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

6015%

#1221

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

6005%

#1222

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

5844%

#1225

Core i7-660UM

MSRP: $317|Avg: N/A

100%

#1226

C-30

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

100%

#1228

Core i7-620UM

MSRP: $278|Avg: N/A

97%

#1230

Celeron 570

MSRP: $134|Avg: $15

94%

#1231

Core i7-820QM

MSRP: $546|Avg: N/A

83%

#1233

Core Duo T2700

MSRP: $663|Avg: N/A

70%

#1235

Pentium SU4100

MSRP: $289|Avg: $15

59%

#1236

Core Solo T1400

MSRP: $200|Avg: $5

53%

#1237

Core i7-940XM

MSRP: $1096|Avg: N/A

51%

#1238

Core Solo T1350

MSRP: $200|Avg: $70

50%

#1240

Core Solo T1300

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

46%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3500

#947

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

1841%

#948

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

1814%

#949

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

1665%

#950

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

1657%

#951

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

1642%

#953

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

1586%

#954

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1521%

#955

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1518%

#956

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1477%

#959

Celeron Dual-Core T3500

MSRP: $80|Avg: $15

100%

#960

Celeron 4305UE

MSRP: $107|Avg: $107

100%

#963

Core i7-10510U

MSRP: $409|Avg: N/A

98%

#968

Core i7-4710MQ

MSRP: $378|Avg: $378

96%

#970

Celeron T3100

MSRP: $62|Avg: $62

96%

#971

Core i7-4800MQ

MSRP: $380|Avg: $378

95%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Core i7-660UM delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.3% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Core i7-660UM	Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($317)	✅ More affordable ($15)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Arrandale (2010−2011) / 32 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Value Proposition: While both processors are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 holds the technical lead in efficiency. Priced at $15 (vs $317), it costs 95% less. While offering basic entry-level performance, it results in a 2007% higher cost efficiency score compared to the Core i7-660UM.

Insight	Core i7-660UM	Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+2007%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($317)	✅ More affordable ($15)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-660UM Benchmark Check

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-660UM and Celeron Dual-Core T3500

Core i7-660UM

The Core i7-660UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 May 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 1,279 points. Launch price was $317.

Celeron Dual-Core T3500

The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 26 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,275 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-660UM packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron Dual-Core T3500's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Core i7-660UM versus 2.1 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 — a 13.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-660UM. The Core i7-660UM uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-660UM scores 1,279 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3500's 1,275 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i7-660UM.

Feature	Core i7-660UM	Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+14%	2.1 GHz
Base Clock	1.33 GHz	—
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	1 MB+300%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,279	1,275
Geekbench 6 Single	250	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	600	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-660UM uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Core i7-660UM versus 800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 — the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 supports 198.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-660UM) vs 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T3500) — the Core i7-660UM offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: PM55,HM55,QM57,HM57 (Core i7-660UM) and GL40,GM45,GM47 (Celeron Dual-Core T3500).

Feature	Core i7-660UM	Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Socket	BGA1288	P
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	800+26567%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+104857500%	8
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-660UM) vs false (Celeron Dual-Core T3500). The Core i7-660UM includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-660UM targets Budget, Celeron Dual-Core T3500 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3500 rivals Pentium T4400.