OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Celeron 3965Y review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:1201N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1515TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Celeron 3965Y Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 84% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

3.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 95%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £90
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron 3965Y

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

3.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

3.6
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.1
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1515
This processor uses the FCBGA1515 CPU socket, which is older than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.5 GHz which is lower than that of 96.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,201
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,201 in PassMark, which is lower than 98.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
2 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L
This processor supports DDR DDR3L, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR3-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.9% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel HD Graphics 615
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 615
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 615 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 75.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 4.5 W
Show more

Intel Celeron 3965Y vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 86.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron 3965Y is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron 3965Y is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 86.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 89.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,201 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,201 vs 11,469
  • 89.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (542 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    542 vs 5,209
  • 65.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (888 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    888 vs 2,558
  • 79.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (318 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    318 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 3% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron 3965Y has worse value for money than the average processor (7.07 vs 7.3).
    7.07 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    April 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1515 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1515 vs FP5
  • 89.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,201 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,201 vs 11,469
  • 89.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (542 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    542 vs 5,209
  • 65.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (888 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    888 vs 2,558
  • 79.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (318 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    318 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 13 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (15 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    15 vs 28
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 77.8% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    2 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 36.5% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    29.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 6 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (10 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    10 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR3-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L vs DDR4).
    DDR3L vs DDR4
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 615 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 615 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron 3965Y

  • High power efficiency with a very low TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 6W, suitable for fanless designs
  • Cost-effective for entry-level laptops and tablets
  • Reliable for basic computing tasks like web browsing, word processing, and light office work
  • Supports hardware decoding for modern video codecs like H.265/HEVC and VP9
  • Includes Intel HD Graphics 615 which can handle 4K output at 60Hz via DisplayPort

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron 3965Y

  • Extremely limited performance for anything beyond basic tasks due to low 1.5 GHz clock speed
  • Lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology significantly hampers single-thread performance
  • Missing Hyper-Threading means it is limited to only two physical cores and two threads
  • Struggles with heavy multitasking, large spreadsheets, and background processes
  • Not suitable for modern gaming or professional creative workloads like video editing
  • Often paired with low amounts of RAM (e.g., 4GB) in budget devices, further bottlenecking performance

Verdict

The Intel Celeron 3965Y is a low-power, entry-level dual-core processor from the Kaby Lake architecture, featuring a base clock speed of 1.5 GHz and a 6W TDP (configurable down to 4.5W). Manufactured on a 14nm process, it includes 2MB of Smart Cache and integrated Intel HD Graphics 615 with 24 execution units. Its main advantages include extreme energy efficiency for fanless designs and modern video capabilities like hardware decoding for H.265/HEVC and VP9 codecs. However, it lacks performance-boosting features such as Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading, resulting in limited multitasking capability and slow single-thread speeds that may be noticeable even in daily office tasks.

Compare Intel Celeron 3965Y with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Celeron 3965Y and other processors

No results found