Celeron 877 vs Celeron J1800

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 J1800 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 J1800: 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

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (805 vs 820).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron J1800 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1600% higher power demand at 17W vs 1W.

Celeron J1800

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 17W, a 16W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 2 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1800 better than Celeron 877?

Yes. Celeron J1800 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.9% 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 J1800 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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 J1800 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J1800 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron J1800 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 877 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.

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

Celeron J1800 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 877 vs Celeron J1800 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 J1800

The Celeron J1800 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 820 points. Launch price was $72.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 877 and Celeron J1800 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Celeron 877 versus 2.58 GHz on the Celeron J1800 — a 59.3% clock advantage for the Celeron J1800 (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.41 GHz). The Celeron 877 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron J1800 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 877 scores 805 against the Celeron J1800's 820 — a 1.8% lead for the Celeron J1800. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 877 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1800.

Feature	Celeron 877	Celeron J1800
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	2.58 GHz+84%
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	2.41 GHz+72%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)+100%	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	805	820+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 877 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron J1800 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. 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 4 (Celeron J1800) — the Celeron 877 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,HM75,HM76,HM77 (Celeron 877) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1800).

Feature	Celeron 877	Celeron J1800
Socket	BGA1023	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3L-1333
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. Both support VT-x virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 877) and HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron J1800) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 877 targets Budget, Celeron J1800 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron 877 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron J1800 rivals Pentium J2850.