Celeron 1005M Benchmarks & Performance Report

Sysbuilds Alpha Stage!

Please take all results with a big grain of salt. Sysbuilds is in alpha stage at the moment which can lead to wrong data, strange counting errors, silly results and more. This site is under active development.

Benchmark Results

Combined benchmark scores based on multiple data points, giving a quick overview of this processor's performance.

Overall Score

Overall score for Celeron 1005M based on all benchmark results gathered. Look at this like a meta score, you will find more specific workload ratings below.

4,225 Rank: 1634

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1630	A4-3400	4,228	+0.1%
1631	Core i5-3339Y	4,227	+0%
1632	Phenom II X4 905e	4,226	+0%
1633	Athlon II X2 220	4,226	+0%
1634	Celeron 1005M	4,225
1635	Phenom II X4 810	4,224	+-0%
1636	A4-5300	4,224	+-0%
1637	Intel Core i3-380M	4,223	+-0%
1638	FX-9800P	4,223	+-0%
1639	Core 2 Quad Q8400	4,223	+-0%

View full ranking →

Multicore Score

Multicore performance score for Celeron 1005M based on multi-threaded benchmark results.

4,311 Rank: 1725

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1721	Celeron 3965Y	4,312	+0%
1722	Pentium P6200	4,312	+0%
1723	Pentium G640	4,311	+0%
1724	Celeron G540	4,311	+0%
1725	Celeron 1005M	4,311
1726	A6-9210	4,311	+0%
1727	E2-9000	4,311	+0%
1728	Core i3-350M	4,311	+0%
1729	A6-5400B	4,310	+-0%
1730	Pentium 4410Y	4,309	+-0%

View full ranking →

Singlecore Score

Single-core performance score for Celeron 1005M based on single-threaded benchmark results.

4,167 Rank: 1612

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1608	Celeron N4000	4,171	+0.1%
1609	Core 2 Duo E7500	4,171	+0.1%
1610	Xeon E5420	4,169	+0%
1611	Core i7-920XM	4,169	+0%
1612	Celeron 1005M	4,167
1613	Athlon II X2 240	4,166	+-0%
1614	Athlon II X2 220	4,166	+-0%
1615	Pentium 3825U	4,166	+-0%
1616	Core i3-2310M	4,165	+-0%
1617	Core 2 Duo P9600	4,165	+-0%

View full ranking →

Workload Scores

Performance scores grouped by workload type, normalized and aggregated from multiple raw benchmark results.

Number Crunching

Aggregated score for Celeron 1005M based on integer math, floating point math, and prime number computation benchmarks.

4,498 Rank: 1542

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1538	Phenom II X2 555	4,499	+0%
1539	A6-5350M	4,499	+0%
1540	Athlon 5150	4,499	+0%
1541	Celeron J4005	4,498	+0%
1542	Celeron 1005M	4,498
1543	Pentium 3556U	4,498	+0%
1544	A6-3430MX	4,498	+0%
1545	Pentium 4405Y	4,497	+-0%
1546	Pentium B980	4,497	+-0%
1547	Pentium B970	4,497	+-0%

View full ranking →

Data Processing

Aggregated score for Celeron 1005M based on data encryption, data compression, and string sorting benchmarks.

4,453 Rank: 1639

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1635	Core i3-2375M	4,454	+0%
1636	Atom C3338	4,454	+0%
1637	Celeron E3300	4,454	+0%
1638	E2-3800	4,454	+0%
1639	Celeron 1005M	4,453
1640	Core i3-4012Y	4,453	+0%
1641	A4-9120	4,453	+0%
1642	Celeron 3855U	4,452	+-0%
1643	Core i3-2377M	4,452	+-0%
1644	Celeron 3965Y	4,452	+-0%

View full ranking →

Physics & Compute

Aggregated score for Celeron 1005M based on physics simulation and extended instruction set (SSE/AVX) benchmarks.

4,482 Rank: 1526

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1522	Pentium B980	4,482	+0%
1523	Core i3-2377M	4,482	+0%
1524	Core i3-2367M	4,482	+0%
1525	Athlon II X3 435	4,482	+0%
1526	Celeron 1005M	4,482
1527	Celeron 4205U	4,482	+0%
1528	Pentium B960	4,481	+-0%
1529	Pentium B950	4,481	+-0%
1530	A9-9430	4,481	+-0%
1531	Phenom II X2 555	4,481	+-0%

View full ranking →

Celeron 1005M Details

The Intel Celeron 1005M stands out for its balanced single-core performance, particularly notable given its entry-level positioning. As of March 2026, this processor remains a product of a bygone era, with a 22 nm process and a 2011 release window, placing it among the older designs still referenced in performance databases. Despite its age, it holds its own in single-threaded tasks, scoring 4167 in the Singlecore Score and ranking #1612 of 2060, slightly ahead of some modern low-power Atom and Celeron variants. Its two cores and 2 threads operate at a consistent 1.9 GHz base frequency, with no turbo boost, reflecting its design for efficiency over raw power.

Built on Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture, the Celeron 1005M is a dual-core processor designed for low-end laptops and netbooks. It features integrated Intel HD Graphics, capable of reaching a burst frequency of 1000 MHz, and supports up to three displays. With a 35 W TDP and FC-PGA988 socket, it was intended for compact, fanless systems where thermal constraints were a primary concern. The processor supports DDR3 memory at speeds up to 1600 MHz, with a maximum of 32 GB and dual-channel memory support, delivering a peak memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

While its single-core performance is respectable, the Celeron 1005M's multicore capabilities are modest, reflected in its Multicore Score of 4311 and overall ranking of #1723. Its performance is comparable to mid-tier mobile processors from the same era, such as the Pentium P6200 and Core i5-3339Y, but it trails behind modern low-power CPUs in both efficiency and raw throughput. The processor supports a range of Intel technologies including AES-NI, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, Hyper-Threading, and VT-x, making it suitable for basic virtualization and encryption tasks.

In benchmark comparisons, the Celeron 1005M is positioned near the lower end of the spectrum, with its overall score of 4225 placing it behind more recent offerings like the A10-9600P and Core i5-3339Y. Its performance is competitive with early 2010s dual-core CPUs but falls short of today's standards, especially in the top 50 multicore and single-core lists, where processors like the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX and Core Ultra 9 285K dominate. This processor is best suited for light productivity tasks, web browsing, and media playback in low-cost or legacy systems.

Overall, the Celeron 1005M is a relic of the early Sandy Bridge era, offering sufficient performance for basic computing needs but lacking the power and efficiency of modern alternatives. Its inclusion in current benchmarks reflects its role as a baseline reference point for evaluating the evolution of Intel's mobile processor lineup. For users requiring more than basic functionality, modern alternatives with higher core counts, faster clocks, and improved integrated graphics are strongly recommended.