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 560 vs Celeron J1750 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 560 vs Celeron J1750: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 560

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron J1750 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (475 vs 505).
❌Launch MSRP is still $89 MSRP, while Celeron J1750 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3000% higher power demand at 31W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1750 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 31W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron 560 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than Celeron 560?

Yes. Celeron J1750 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6.3% 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 J1750 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J1750 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J1750 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $89 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 560 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Celeron J1750 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 560 vs Celeron J1750 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Celeron J1750

The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J1750 is built on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 560 scores 475 against the Celeron J1750's 505 — a 6.1% lead for the Celeron J1750. Both processors carry 1 MB L2 Cache of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 560	Celeron J1750
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	2.41 GHz
Base Clock	2.13 GHz	2.41 GHz+13%
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	—	1 MB
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	—	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	475	505+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 560 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron J1750 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron 560 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1750 — the Celeron J1750 supports 99.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J1750 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 560) vs 4 (Celeron J1750) — the Celeron J1750 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Santa Rosa (Celeron 560) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).

Feature	Celeron 560	Celeron J1750
Socket	PGA478	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3L-1333+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 560) vs VT-x (Celeron J1750). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron 560 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 560 targets Budget, Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron 560 rivals Pentium T2310; Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.