Celeron 1000M vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700

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.

Celeron 1000M vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700 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.

Celeron 1000M vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1000M

2013

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Celeron Dual-Core T1700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron Dual-Core T1700 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,058 vs 1,070).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1000M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1000M better than Celeron Dual-Core T1700?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is ahead with a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1000M pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1000M is the better buy right now. Celeron 1000M comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 1000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 1000M vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1000M

The Celeron 1000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.83 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1000M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M versus 1.83 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 — a 1.7% clock advantage for the Celeron Dual-Core T1700. The Celeron 1000M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses Merom (2006−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1000M scores 1,070 against the Celeron Dual-Core T1700's 1,058 — a 1.1% lead for the Celeron 1000M.

Feature	Celeron 1000M	Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	1.83 GHz+2%
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Merom (2006−2008)
PassMark	1,070+1%	1,058

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1000M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1000M versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 — the Celeron 1000M supports 139.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1000M) vs 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) — the Celeron 1000M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700).

Feature	Celeron 1000M	Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Socket	PGA988	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+140%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+700%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron 1000M) / No (Celeron Dual-Core T1700). The Celeron 1000M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1700 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1700 rivals Pentium T2390.