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 857 vs Celeron E1200 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 857 vs Celeron E1200: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 857

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.9% higher average FPS across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron E1200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.3 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Celeron E1200

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $81 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 138.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.5 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 857 across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (665 vs 705).
❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 857 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 857 better than Celeron E1200?

Yes. Celeron 857 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.9% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 857 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.9% more average FPS across 38 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 857 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 857 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron 857 comes in 152.8% more expensive on MSRP at $134 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.9% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron E1200 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 138.5% better value on paper (12.5 vs 5.3 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Celeron 857 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 857 vs Celeron E1200 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 857

The Celeron 857 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 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: 705 points. Launch price was $134.

Celeron E1200

The Celeron E1200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $40.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 857 and Celeron E1200 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 857 versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron E1200 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Celeron E1200 (base: 1.2 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron 857 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron E1200 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 857 scores 705 against the Celeron E1200's 665 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron 857. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857 vs 0 kB on the Celeron E1200.

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron E1200
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	1.6 GHz+33%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	1.6 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (total)+100%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Allendale (2006−2009)
PassMark	705+6%	665
Geekbench 6 Single	—	210
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	380

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 857 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron E1200 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 857 versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1200 — the Celeron 857 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 857 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: 16 (Celeron 857) vs 0 (Celeron E1200) — the Celeron 857 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 857) and G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1200).

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron E1200
Socket	BGA1023	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 857) vs No (Celeron E1200). The Celeron 857 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron E1200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget, Celeron E1200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron E1200 rivals Pentium E2140.

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron E1200
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	No
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 857 was priced at $134, while the Celeron E1200 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($134 vs $53), Celeron E1200 was $81 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 857 delivers 5.3 pts/$ vs 12.5 pts/$ for the Celeron E1200 — making the Celeron E1200 the 81.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron E1200
MSRP	$134	$53-60%
Performance per Dollar	5.3	12.5+136%
Release Date	2011	2008

Search Celeron 857 on Amazon

Search Celeron E1200 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.