Celeron 807 vs Celeron SU2300

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 SU2300 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 SU2300: 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

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (1.5 MB vs 1 MB).
✅Costs $64 less on MSRP ($70 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 87.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 4.1 PassMark/$ ($70 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron SU2300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron SU2300 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (535 vs 545).
❌70% higher power demand at 17W vs 10W.

Celeron SU2300

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 10W instead of 17W, a 7W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 1.5 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.1 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $70 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron SU2300 better than Celeron 807?

Yes. Celeron SU2300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron SU2300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.8% 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 SU2300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark.

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

Celeron SU2300 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron SU2300 comes in 91.4% more expensive on MSRP at $134 MSRP versus $70 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.8% 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, especially when the gap is already 8.8% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron 807 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2009) and 50% larger total L3 cache (1.5 MB vs 1 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 807 vs Celeron SU2300 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 SU2300

The Celeron SU2300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 807 is built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 807 scores 535 against the Celeron SU2300's 545 — a 1.9% lead for the Celeron SU2300. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807 vs 1 MB on the Celeron SU2300.

Feature	Celeron 807	Celeron SU2300
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	—
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	—
Base Clock	1.5 GHz+25%	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	1.5 MB (total)+50%	1 MB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	—
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	—
PassMark	535	545+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 807 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron SU2300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 807	Celeron SU2300
Socket	BGA1023	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 807) / not specified (Celeron SU2300). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron SU2300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile.

Feature	Celeron 807	Celeron SU2300
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Mobile	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 807 was priced at $70, while the Celeron SU2300 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($70 vs $134), Celeron 807 was $64 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 807 delivers 7.6 pts/$ vs 4.1 pts/$ for the Celeron SU2300 — making the Celeron 807 the 61.1% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 807	Celeron SU2300
MSRP	$70-48%	$134
Performance per Dollar	7.6+85%	4.1
Release Date	2012	2009

Search Celeron 807 on Amazon

Search Celeron SU2300 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.