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 877 vs Celeron E1600 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 877 vs Celeron E1600: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 877

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron E1600 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (805 vs 815).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.4 vs 15.4 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Celeron E1600

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $33 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 64.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.4 vs 9.4 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 877 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E1600 better than Celeron 877?

Yes. Celeron E1600 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron E1600 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% more average FPS across 39 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron E1600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E1600 is the better buy right now. Celeron E1600 comes in $33 cheaper on MSRP at $53 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 64.3% better value on MSRP (15.4 vs 9.4 PassMark/$), 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 877 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 877 vs Celeron E1600 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 877

The Celeron 877 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 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 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: 805 points. Launch price was $86.

Celeron E1600

The Celeron E1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 815 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 877 and Celeron E1600 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Celeron 877 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E1600 — a 52.6% clock advantage for the Celeron E1600 (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Celeron 877 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron E1600 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 877 scores 805 against the Celeron E1600's 815 — a 1.2% lead for the Celeron E1600. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 877 vs 0 kB on the Celeron E1600.

Feature	Celeron 877	Celeron E1600
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	2.4 GHz+71%
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	2.4 GHz+71%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (total)+100%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Allendale (2006−2009)
PassMark	805	815+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	310
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	560

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 877 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron E1600 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 877 versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1600 — the Celeron 877 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 877 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 877) vs 0 (Celeron E1600) — the Celeron 877 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,HM75,HM76,HM77 (Celeron 877) and G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1600).

Feature	Celeron 877	Celeron E1600
Socket	BGA1023	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 877) vs No (Celeron E1600). The Celeron 877 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron E1600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 877 targets Budget, Celeron E1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 877 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron E1600 rivals Pentium E2220.

Feature	Celeron 877	Celeron E1600
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	No
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 877 was priced at $86, while the Celeron E1600 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($86 vs $53), Celeron E1600 was $33 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 877 delivers 9.4 pts/$ vs 15.4 pts/$ for the Celeron E1600 — making the Celeron E1600 the 48.6% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 877	Celeron E1600
MSRP	$86	$53-38%
Performance per Dollar	9.4	15.4+64%
Release Date	2012	2009

Search Celeron 877 on Amazon

Search Celeron E1600 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.