i3-10100 vs Celeron M 410
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-10100 outperforms Celeron M 410 by a whopping 6650% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3402 | 1167 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 17.33 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.28 | 7.91 |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Comet Lake-S (2020) |
| Release date | no data | 30 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $130 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 1.46 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.46 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.0V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | FCLGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | - | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 41.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 630 |
| Max video memory | no data | 64 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.1 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@30Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.08 | 5.40 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron M 410 has 140.7% lower power consumption.
i3-10100, on the other hand, has a 6650% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Core i3-10100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 410 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 410 is a notebook processor while Core i3-10100 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 410 and Core i3-10100, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
