Atom D2550 vs Celeron 857

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.

Atom D2550 vs Celeron 857 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Atom D2550 vs Celeron 857: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Atom D2550

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 17W, a 7W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Celeron 857

2011

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (705 vs 715).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Atom D2550 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌70% higher power demand at 17W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom D2550 better than Celeron 857?

Yes. Atom D2550 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom D2550 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom D2550 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Atom D2550 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Atom D2550 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 857 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 1.3% in the shared gaming data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Atom D2550 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom D2550 vs Celeron 857 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Atom D2550

The Atom D2550 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.87 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 857

The Celeron 857 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom D2550 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron 857's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.87 GHz on the Atom D2550 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 857 — a 43.6% clock advantage for the Atom D2550 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 1.2 GHz). The Atom D2550 uses the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 857 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom D2550 scores 715 against the Celeron 857's 705 — a 1.4% lead for the Atom D2550. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom D2550 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857.

Feature	Atom D2550	Celeron 857
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.87 GHz+56%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.86 GHz+55%	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Cedarview (2011−2012)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	715+1%	705

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom D2550 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 857 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Atom D2550 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 857 — the Celeron 857 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 857 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom D2550) vs 2 (Celeron 857). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom D2550) vs 16 (Celeron 857) — the Celeron 857 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA559 (Atom D2550) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 857).

Feature	Atom D2550	Celeron 857
Socket	FCBGA559	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	DDR3-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom D2550) / VT-x (Celeron 857). Both include integrated graphics — Intel GMA 3650 (Atom D2550) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 857) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967.