Celeron 867 vs Celeron N3000

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 N3000 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 N3000: 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

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron N3000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌750% higher power demand at 17W vs 2W.

Celeron N3000

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 17W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 867 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (705 vs 755).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 867 better than Celeron N3000?

Yes. Celeron 867 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 7.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 867 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.0% 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 867 is the stronger fit. You are getting 7.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 867 is the better buy right now. Celeron 867 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (8.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 N3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 867 vs Celeron N3000 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 N3000

The Celeron N3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 867 and Celeron N3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 867 versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3000 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N3000 (base: 1.3 GHz vs 1.04 GHz). The Celeron 867 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N3000 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 867 scores 755 against the Celeron N3000's 705 — a 6.8% lead for the Celeron 867. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 867 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N3000.

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron N3000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz	2.08 GHz+60%
Base Clock	1.3 GHz+25%	1.04 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	755+7%	705
Geekbench 6 Single	—	160
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	290

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 867 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3000 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 867 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron N3000 — the Celeron N3000 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 867 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 867) vs 4 (Celeron N3000) — the Celeron 867 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 867) and SoC (Celeron N3000).

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron N3000
Socket	BGA1023	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3L-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 867) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron N3000). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 867) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3000) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 867 targets Budget, Celeron N3000 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 867 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron N3000 rivals AMD E2-7110.

Feature	Celeron 867	Celeron N3000
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	Intel HD Graphics 400
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Budget	Budget Laptop