Celeron N3150 vs 1000M

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads
0.70
Celeron N3150
2015
4 cores / 4 threads
0.78
+11.4%

N3150 outperforms 1000M by 11% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking25772500
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Braswell (2015−2016)
Release date20 January 2013 (11 years old)1 April 2015 (9 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$86$107
Current price$219 (2.5x MSRP)$408 (3.8x MSRP)

Technical specs

Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.8 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz2.08 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache256K (per core)2 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size118 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCPGA988FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access+no data
SIPPno data-
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
StatusDiscontinuedDiscontinued
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protectionno data+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
ECC memory support--

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® ProcessorsIntel® HD Graphics for Intel® Celeron® Processor N3000 Series
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Video-+
Clear Video HD-+
Graphics max frequency1 GHz640 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33
eDP++
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes164
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron 1000M 0.70
Celeron N3150 0.78
+11.4%

N3150 outperforms 1000M by 11% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Celeron 1000M 1074
Celeron N3150 1198
+11.5%

N3150 outperforms 1000M by 12% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Celeron 1000M 298
+84%
Celeron N3150 162

1000M outperforms N3150 by 84% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Celeron 1000M 511
+3.7%
Celeron N3150 493

1000M outperforms N3150 by 4% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Celeron 1000M 2480
+129%
Celeron N3150 1085

1000M outperforms N3150 by 129% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Celeron 1000M 4757
+31.3%
Celeron N3150 3624

1000M outperforms N3150 by 31% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Celeron 1000M 1923
Celeron N3150 2053
+6.8%

N3150 outperforms 1000M by 7% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

Celeron 1000M 41.63
Celeron N3150 30.11
+38.3%

1000M outperforms N3150 by 38% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Celeron 1000M 1
Celeron N3150 1

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Celeron 1000M 0.74
+80.5%
Celeron N3150 0.41

1000M outperforms N3150 by 80% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron 1000M 0.2
Celeron N3150 0.8
+413%

N3150 outperforms 1000M by 413% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron 1000M 1285
+40.4%
Celeron N3150 915

1000M outperforms N3150 by 40% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron 1000M 47
+5.4%
Celeron N3150 45

1000M outperforms N3150 by 5% in x264 encoding pass 1.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron 1000M 8
Celeron N3150 9
+5.5%

N3150 outperforms 1000M by 6% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Celeron 1000M 3405
+14.1%
Celeron N3150 2983

1000M outperforms N3150 by 14% in Geekbench 2.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 0.70 0.78
Recency 20 January 2013 1 April 2015
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Cost $86 $107
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

The Celeron N3150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and Celeron N3150, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M
Intel Celeron N3150
Celeron N3150

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 146 votes

Rate Intel Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 33 votes

Rate Intel Celeron N3150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1000M or Celeron N3150, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.