Atom D2550 vs Celeron 867

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 867 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 867: 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 867 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (715 vs 755).

Celeron 867

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Atom D2550 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌70% higher power demand at 17W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 867 better than Atom D2550?

Yes. Celeron 867 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.6% 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, Celeron 867 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.2% 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, Celeron 867 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 867 is the better buy right now. Celeron 867 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (8.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 867 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom D2550 vs Celeron 867 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 867

The Celeron 867 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 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: 755 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom D2550 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron 867's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.87 GHz on the Atom D2550 versus 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 867 — a 36% clock advantage for the Atom D2550 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 1.3 GHz). The Atom D2550 uses the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 867 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom D2550 scores 715 against the Celeron 867's 755 — a 5.4% lead for the Celeron 867. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom D2550 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 867.

Feature	Atom D2550	Celeron 867
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.87 GHz+44%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.86 GHz+43%	1.3 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	755+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom D2550 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 867 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 867 — the Celeron 867 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 867 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 867). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom D2550) vs 16 (Celeron 867) — the Celeron 867 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA559 (Atom D2550) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 867).

Feature	Atom D2550	Celeron 867
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 867). Both include integrated graphics — Intel GMA 3650 (Atom D2550) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 867) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 867 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 867 rivals Pentium 967.