Celeron 867 vs E1-2200

Celeron 867 vs E1-2200 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 867

2 / 2

755

0.0%

802

+6.2%

Athlon XP 3200+

Athlon 64 3300+

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Athlon 64 FX-55

Ryzen 7 4700G

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

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 E1-2200 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 E1-2200: 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

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while E1-2200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E1-2200 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (755 vs 802).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E1-2200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌88.9% higher power demand at 17W vs 9W.

E1-2200

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 9W instead of 17W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 867 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E1-2200 better than Celeron 867?

Yes. E1-2200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6.2% 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, E1-2200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% 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, E1-2200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E1-2200 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. E1-2200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.7% 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 6.7% in the shared gaming data.

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

E1-2200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012) 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 867 vs E1-2200 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.

E1-2200

The E1-2200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.05 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 802 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 867 and E1-2200 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 867 versus 1.05 GHz on the E1-2200 — a 21.3% clock advantage for the Celeron 867. The Celeron 867 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the E1-2200 uses Kabini (2013−2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 867 scores 755 against the E1-2200's 802 — a 6% lead for the E1-2200.

Feature	Celeron 867	E1-2200
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz+24%	1.05 GHz
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1024 kB+300%
Process	32 nm	28 nm-13%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	755	802+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 867 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E1-2200 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 867	E1-2200
Socket	BGA1023	FT3
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 867) / not specified (E1-2200). The Celeron 867 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the E1-2200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 867 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 867 rivals Pentium 967.