Celeron 857 vs Celeron T1600

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 T1600 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 T1600: 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

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).
✅Draws 17W instead of 35W, a 18W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron T1600 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (705 vs 715).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.3 vs 6.7 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).

Celeron T1600

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $27 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 27.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 6.7 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 2 MB).
❌105.9% higher power demand at 35W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 857 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron T1600 better than Celeron 857?

Yes. Celeron T1600 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron T1600 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.4% 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 T1600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark.

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

Celeron T1600 is the better buy right now. Celeron T1600 comes in $27 cheaper on MSRP at $107 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 27.0% better value on MSRP (6.7 vs 5.3 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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 100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 857 vs Celeron T1600 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 T1600

The Celeron T1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.66 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 857 is built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 857 scores 705 against the Celeron T1600's 715 — a 1.4% lead for the Celeron T1600. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1600.

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron T1600
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	—
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	1.66 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)+100%	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	—
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	—
PassMark	705	715+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 857 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron T1600 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron T1600
Socket	BGA1023	PGA478
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	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 857) / not specified (Celeron T1600). The Celeron 857 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron T1600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron T1600
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 857 was priced at $134, while the Celeron T1600 came in at $107. On launch pricing ($134 vs $107), Celeron T1600 was $27 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 857 delivers 5.3 pts/$ vs 6.7 pts/$ for the Celeron T1600 — making the Celeron T1600 the 23.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 857	Celeron T1600
MSRP	$134	$107-20%
Performance per Dollar	5.3	6.7+26%
Release Date	2011	2008

Search Celeron 857 on Amazon

Search Celeron T1600 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.