Celeron 877 vs E2-2000

Celeron 877 vs E2-2000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 877

2 / 2

805

0.0%

880

+9.3%

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 877 vs E2-2000 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 E2-2000: 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+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while E2-2000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E2-2000 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (805 vs 880).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E2-2000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

E2-2000

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 877 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-2000 better than Celeron 877?

Yes. E2-2000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 11.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 9.3% 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, E2-2000 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 11.5% 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, E2-2000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 9.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-2000 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. E2-2000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 11.5% 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, especially when the gap is already 11.5% in the shared gaming data.

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

E2-2000 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 E2-2000 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.

E2-2000

The E2-2000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.75 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 880 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 877 and E2-2000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Celeron 877 versus 1.75 GHz on the E2-2000 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the E2-2000. The Celeron 877 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the E2-2000 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 877 scores 805 against the E2-2000's 880 — a 8.9% lead for the E2-2000. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 877 vs 0 kB on the E2-2000.

Feature	Celeron 877	E2-2000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	1.75 GHz+25%
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	32 nm-20%	40 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	805	880+9%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 877 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-2000 uses FT1 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 877	E2-2000
Socket	BGA1023	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
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 877) / not specified (E2-2000). The Celeron 877 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the E2-2000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 877 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 877 rivals Pentium 967.