Celeron 807 vs Celeron J1750

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 807 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 807 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 807

2012

Why buy it

✅+5.9% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (1.5 MB vs 1 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $70 MSRP, while Celeron J1750 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1600% higher power demand at 17W vs 1W.

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 17W, a 16W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 535).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 1.5 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than Celeron 807?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J1750 is ahead with a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 pulls ahead with 5.9% better PassMark. Celeron 807 also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (1.5 MB vs 1 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (1.5 MB vs 1 MB).

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

Celeron J1750 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $70 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 807 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

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 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 807 vs Celeron J1750 Technical Specifications

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

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.

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 807 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron J1750 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J1750 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 — a 46.5% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750 (base: 1.5 GHz vs 2.41 GHz). The Celeron 807 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron J1750 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 807 scores 535 against the Celeron J1750's 505 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron 807. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1750.

Feature	Celeron 807	Celeron J1750
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.41 GHz+61%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	2.41 GHz+61%
L3 Cache	1.5 MB (total)+50%	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	535+6%	505
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 807 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron J1750 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 807) vs 4 (Celeron J1750) — the Celeron J1750 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).

Feature	Celeron 807	Celeron J1750
Socket	BGA1023	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 807) and HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron J1750) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile, Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.