Celeron 6305 vs Celeron B815

CPU

GPU

Celeron 6305

2 Cores2 Thrd2.5 WWMax: 1.8 GHz2020

Buy on Amazon

Celeron B815

2 Cores2 Thrd0 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2012

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 6305 vs Celeron B815 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 6305

2 / 2

2,077

0.0%

2,093

+0.8%

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 6305 vs Celeron B815 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 6305 vs Celeron B815: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 6305

2020

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,077 vs 2,093).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.4 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Celeron B815

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $21 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅Delivers 25.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 19.4 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 6305 better than Celeron B815?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 6305 is ahead with a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B815 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark. Celeron 6305 also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B815 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 6305 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron 6305 comes in 24.4% more expensive on MSRP at $107 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron B815 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 25.4% better value on paper (24.3 vs 19.4 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Celeron 6305 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2012) and 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 6305 vs Celeron B815 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 6305

The Celeron 6305 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 2.5 MB. Built on 10 nm SuperFin process technology. Socket: FCBGA1449. Thermal design power (TDP): 2.5 MB + 4 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 2,077 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron B815

The Celeron B815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,093 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 6305 and Celeron B815 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 6305 versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron B815 — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 6305. The Celeron 6305 uses the Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021) architecture (10 nm SuperFin), while the Celeron B815 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 6305 scores 2,077 against the Celeron B815's 2,093 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron B815. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron 6305 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B815.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Celeron B815
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+12%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB+100%	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2.5 MB	256K (per core)+10140%
Process	10 nm SuperFin-69%	32 nm
Architecture	Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	2,077	2,093
Geekbench 6 Single	744	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,236	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 6305 uses the FCBGA1449 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Celeron B815 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the Celeron 6305 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron B815 — the Celeron 6305 supports 140.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 6305 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron 6305) vs 16 (Celeron B815) — the Celeron B815 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Tiger Lake-U (Celeron 6305) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B815).

Feature	Celeron 6305	Celeron B815
Socket	FCBGA1449	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+100%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200+140%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+300%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 6305) vs VT-x (Celeron B815). Both include integrated graphics — UHD Graphics for 11th Gen (Celeron 6305) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B815) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 6305 targets Budget, Celeron B815 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 6305 rivals Pentium Gold 7505; Celeron B815 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Celeron B815
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics for 11th Gen	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 6305 was priced at $107, while the Celeron B815 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($107 vs $86), Celeron B815 was $21 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 6305 delivers 19.4 pts/$ vs 24.3 pts/$ for the Celeron B815 — making the Celeron B815 the 22.5% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Celeron B815
MSRP	$107	$86-20%
Performance per Dollar	19.4	24.3+25%
Release Date	2020	2012

Search Celeron 6305 on Amazon

Search Celeron B815 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.