Celeron 867 vs Celeron B820

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 867 vs Celeron B820 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 867 vs Celeron B820: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 867

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 17W instead of 35W, a 18W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (755 vs 765).

Celeron B820

2012

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌105.9% higher power demand at 35W vs 17W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B820 better than Celeron 867?

Yes. Celeron B820 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 1.3% 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 B820 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 30.8% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B820 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B820 is the better buy right now. Celeron B820 comes in in basically the same MSRP band at $86 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.3% higher PassMark. It is also 1.3% better value on MSRP (8.9 vs 8.8 PassMark/$), 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 B820 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 867 vs Celeron B820 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 867

The Celeron 867 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 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 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: 755 points. Launch price was $134.

Celeron B820

The Celeron B820 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 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 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: 765 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 867 and Celeron B820 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 867 versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron B820 — a 26.7% clock advantage for the Celeron B820 (base: 1.3 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). Both are built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture using a 32 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron 867 scores 755 against the Celeron B820's 765 — a 1.3% lead for the Celeron B820. Both processors carry 2 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron B820
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz	1.7 GHz+31%
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	1.7 GHz+31%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	755	765+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 867 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron B820 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 867) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B820).

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron B820
Socket	BGA1023	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 867) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B820) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 867 targets Budget, Celeron B820 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 867 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron B820 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron B820
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 867 was priced at $86, while the Celeron B820 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($86 vs $86), Celeron B820 was $0 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 867 delivers 8.8 pts/$ vs 8.9 pts/$ for the Celeron B820 — making the Celeron B820 the 1.3% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron B820
MSRP	$86	$86
Performance per Dollar	8.8	8.9+1%
Release Date	2012	2012

Search Celeron 867 on Amazon

Search Celeron B820 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.