
Celeron 570

Celeron 807
Celeron 570 vs Celeron 807 Performance Spectrum
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.
Celeron 570 vs Celeron 807 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Celeron 570 vs Celeron 807: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Celeron 570
2008Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 535).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 1.5 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.8 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $70 MSRP).
- ❌82.4% higher power demand at 31W vs 17W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Celeron 807
2012Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (1.5 MB vs 1 MB).
- ✅Costs $64 less on MSRP ($70 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 102.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 3.8 PassMark/$ ($70 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 17W instead of 31W, a 14W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron 570 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron 807 better than Celeron 570?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron 570 vs Celeron 807 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 570
The Celeron 570 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.26 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 807
The Celeron 807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 535 points. Launch price was $70.
Processing Power
The Celeron 807 is built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 570 scores 505 against the Celeron 807's 535 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron 807. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 570 vs 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807.
| Feature | Celeron 570 | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | — | 1 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | — | 1.5 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.26 GHz+51% | 1.5 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 1.5 MB (total)+50% |
| L2 Cache | — | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 65 nm | 32 nm-51% |
| Architecture | — | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| PassMark | 505 | 535+6% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 570 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 807 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron 570 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 — the Celeron 807 supports 99.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron 570) and QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807).
| Feature | Celeron 570 | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | BGA1023 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | DDR3-1333+100% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 570) vs VT-x (Celeron 807). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron 570 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 570 targets Budget, Celeron 807 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 570 rivals Pentium T2310.
| Feature | Celeron 570 | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | No | VT-x |
| Target Use | Budget | Mobile |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Celeron 570 was priced at $134, while the Celeron 807 came in at $70. On launch pricing ($134 vs $70), Celeron 807 was $64 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 570 delivers 3.8 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 807 — making the Celeron 807 the 67.9% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 570 | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $134 | $70-48% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.8 | 7.6+100% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2012 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














