Celeron 867 vs Celeron B830

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 B830 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 B830: 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

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron B830 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (755 vs 815).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron B830 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Celeron B830

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B830 better than Celeron 867?

Yes. Celeron B830 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 7.9% 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 B830 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.2% 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 B830 is the stronger fit. You are getting 7.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B830 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron B830 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 867 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 5.2% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron B830 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 B830 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 B830

The Celeron B830 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 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: 815 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 867 and Celeron B830 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 867 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron B830 — a 32.3% clock advantage for the Celeron B830 (base: 1.3 GHz vs 1.8 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 B830's 815 — a 7.6% lead for the Celeron B830. Both processors carry 2 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron B830
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz	1.8 GHz+38%
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	1.8 GHz+38%
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	815+8%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 867 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron B830 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 B830).

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron B830
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 B830) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 867 targets Budget, Celeron B830 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 867 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron B830 rivals Pentium 967.