Celeron 440 vs Celeron 560

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 440 vs Celeron 560 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 440 vs Celeron 560: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 440

2007

Why buy it

✅Costs $30 less on MSRP ($59 MSRP vs $89 MSRP).
✅Delivers 49.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 8.0 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($59 MSRP vs $89 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (472 vs 475).

Celeron 560

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 31W instead of 35W, a 4W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.3 vs 8.0 PassMark/$ ($89 MSRP vs $59 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 560 better than Celeron 440?

Yes. Celeron 560 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 0.6% 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 560 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 0.6% stronger overall PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 560 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 560 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron 560 comes in 50.8% more expensive on MSRP at $89 MSRP versus $59 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% higher PassMark. Celeron 440 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2007 platform. Even with 49.9% better value on paper (8.0 vs 5.3 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Celeron 560 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2007). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 440 vs Celeron 560 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 440

The Celeron 440 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 472 points. Launch price was $40.

Celeron 560

The Celeron 560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 440 is built on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 440 scores 472 against the Celeron 560's 475 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 560. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron 440 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 560.

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 560
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	—
Boost Clock	2 GHz	—
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.13 GHz+6%
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB	—
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Conroe-L (2007−2008)	—
PassMark	472	475
Geekbench 6 Single	244	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 440 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 560 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron 440 versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron 560 — the Celeron 440 supports 19.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 945,G31,G41 (Celeron 440) and Santa Rosa (Celeron 560).

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 560
Socket	LGA775	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800+20%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support No virtualization. Primary use case: Celeron 440 targets Budget, Celeron 560 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 440 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Celeron 560 rivals Pentium T2310.

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 560
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	No
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 440 was priced at $59, while the Celeron 560 came in at $89. On launch pricing ($59 vs $89), Celeron 440 was $30 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 440 delivers 8.0 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 560 — making the Celeron 440 the 39.9% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 560
MSRP	$59-34%	$89
Performance per Dollar	8.0+51%	5.3
Release Date	2007	2008

Search Celeron 440 on Amazon

Search Celeron 560 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.