Atom x7-E3950 vs Celeron 887
Atom x7-E3950
Celeron 887
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Atom x7-E3950 is positioned at rank 480 and the Celeron 887 is on rank 837, so the Atom x7-E3950 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Atom x7-E3950
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 887
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Atom x7-E3950 | Celeron 887 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Apollo Lake (2014−2016) / 14 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Atom x7-E3950 | Celeron 887 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Atom x7-E3950 and Celeron 887
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)+700% | 256K (per core) |
| 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 28.6% 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 — 66.7% 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+33% | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 4+100% | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| 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.
| Feature | Atom x7-E3950 | Celeron 887 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 505 | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Laptop |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Atom x7-E3950 and Celeron 887
