Celeron 560 vs Celeron J1750

Celeron 560

31 WW2008

Celeron J1750

2 Cores2 Thrd1 WWMax: 2.41 GHz2013

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron 560

475

0.0%

505

+6.3%

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 Celeron 560 is positioned at rank 1199 and the Celeron J1750 is on rank 1234, so the Celeron 560 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 560

#1187

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

5494%

#1188

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

5414%

#1189

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

4970%

#1190

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

4948%

#1191

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

4902%

#1193

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

4734%

#1194

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

4539%

#1195

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

4532%

#1196

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

4410%

#1199

Celeron 560

MSRP: $89|Avg: $5

100%

#1200

Core i3-2312M

MSRP: $225|Avg: N/A

99%

#1201

Celeron 857

MSRP: $134|Avg: $10

99%

#1202

Celeron 925

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

98%

#1203

Core 2 Duo U7700

MSRP: $262|Avg: $10

96%

#1204

Core 2 Duo E8135

MSRP: $200|Avg: $15

96%

#1205

Core Duo T2400

MSRP: $294|Avg: N/A

95%

#1206

Core 2 Duo U7600

MSRP: $250|Avg: $5

95%

#1207

Pentium M 735

MSRP: $294|Avg: N/A

93%

#1208

Core i7-620LM

MSRP: $300|Avg: N/A

91%

#1209

Core i7-740QM

MSRP: $378|Avg: N/A

91%

#1211

Core 2 Solo SU3300

MSRP: $262|Avg: $50

89%

#1212

Celeron 540

MSRP: $86|Avg: $5

89%

#1213

Celeron U3600

MSRP: $134|Avg: $134

87%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron J1750

#1222

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

10787%

#1223

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

10629%

#1224

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

9757%

#1225

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

9713%

#1226

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

9624%

#1228

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

9294%

#1229

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

8912%

#1230

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

8897%

#1231

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

8658%

#1234

Celeron J1750

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#1235

Pentium SU4100

MSRP: $289|Avg: $15

87%

#1236

Core Solo T1400

MSRP: $200|Avg: $5

79%

#1237

Core i7-940XM

MSRP: $1096|Avg: N/A

76%

#1238

Core Solo T1350

MSRP: $200|Avg: $70

75%

#1240

Core Solo T1300

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

68%

#1241

Core Solo T1200

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

62%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Celeron J1750 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Celeron 560 in both compute-intensive tasks (6.1% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Celeron 560	Celeron J1750
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($5)	✅ More affordable ($0)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-D (2013) / 22 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Insight	Celeron 560	Celeron J1750
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($5)	✅ More affordable ($0)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Celeron 560 Benchmark Check

Celeron J1750 Benchmark Check

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 560 and Celeron J1750

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 40% 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 — 66.7% 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+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
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.