Atom x7-E3950 vs Celeron 887

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 x7-E3950 vs Celeron 887 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 x7-E3950 vs Celeron 887: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom x7-E3950

2016

Why buy it

✅+5.2% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 12W instead of 17W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,864 vs 1,877).

Celeron 887

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 6) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (233 vs 245).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Atom x7-E3950 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌41.7% higher power demand at 17W vs 12W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x7-E3950 better than Celeron 887?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom x7-E3950 is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 887 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 887 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom x7-E3950 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Atom x7-E3950 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 887 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 2.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Atom x7-E3950 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom x7-E3950 vs Celeron 887 Technical Specifications

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

Atom x7-E3950

The Atom x7-E3950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 12 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,864 points. Launch price was $57.

Celeron 887

The Celeron 887 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 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: 1,877 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom x7-E3950 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 887 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom x7-E3950 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Atom x7-E3950 versus 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 887 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Atom x7-E3950 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Atom x7-E3950 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron 887 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x7-E3950 scores 1,864 against the Celeron 887's 1,877 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron 887. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 245 vs 233, a 5% lead for the Atom x7-E3950 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom x7-E3950 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 887.

Feature	Atom x7-E3950	Celeron 887
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz+33%	1.5 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz+7%	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB (total)	256K (per core)+12700%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,864	1,877
Geekbench 6 Single	245+5%	233
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	415

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x7-E3950 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 887 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR4-2400 on the Atom x7-E3950 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 887 — the Atom x7-E3950 supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 887 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 4 (Atom x7-E3950) vs 2 (Celeron 887). PCIe lanes: 6 (Atom x7-E3950) vs 16 (Celeron 887) — the Celeron 887 offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Apollo Lake (Atom x7-E3950) and HM65,HM67,QM67,HM70,HM76 (Celeron 887).

Feature	Atom x7-E3950	Celeron 887
Socket	FCBGA1296	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR4-2400+80%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	4+100%	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	6	16+167%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Atom x7-E3950) vs VT-x (Celeron 887). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics 505 (Atom x7-E3950) and Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 887) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 887 targets Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 887 rivals Pentium 967.