Celeron 3867U vs Celeron J4025

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 3867U vs Celeron J4025 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 3867U vs Celeron J4025: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3867U

2019

Why buy it

✅100% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 6) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,449 vs 1,450).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌5020% higher power demand at 512W vs 10W.

Celeron J4025

2019

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 10W instead of 512W, a 502W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J4025 better than Celeron 3867U?

Yes. Celeron J4025 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 0.1% 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 J4025 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 61.1% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J4025 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Celeron J4025 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J4025 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% higher PassMark.

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

Celeron J4025 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB) 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 3867U vs Celeron J4025 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3867U

The Celeron 3867U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) 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. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,449 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron J4025

The Celeron J4025 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 November 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,450 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3867U and Celeron J4025 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 3867U versus 2.9 GHz on the Celeron J4025 — a 46.8% clock advantage for the Celeron J4025 (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron 3867U uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron J4025 uses Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3867U scores 1,449 against the Celeron J4025's 1,450 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron J4025. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 3867U vs 4 MB on the Celeron J4025.

Feature	Celeron 3867U	Celeron J4025
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.9 GHz+61%
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	2 GHz+11%
L3 Cache	2 MB	4 MB+100%
L2 Cache	512 kB	4 MB (total)+700%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Gemini Lake Refresh (2019)
PassMark	1,449	1,450

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3867U uses the BGA1356 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron J4025 uses FCBGA1090 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the Celeron 3867U versus 2400 on the Celeron J4025 — the Celeron J4025 supports 12.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3867U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 3867U) vs 6 (Celeron J4025) — the Celeron 3867U offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Kaby Lake-U (Celeron 3867U) and BGA1090 (Celeron J4025).

Feature	Celeron 3867U	Celeron J4025
Socket	BGA1356	FCBGA1090
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133	2400+13%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12+100%	6

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3867U) vs true (Celeron J4025). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics 610 (Celeron 3867U) and Intel UHD Graphics 600 (Celeron J4025) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3867U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3867U rivals Pentium Gold 4417U; Celeron J4025 rivals Ryzen Embedded R1102G.