Celeron 887 vs Celeron M P4600

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 887 vs Celeron M P4600 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 887 vs Celeron M P4600: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 887

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 17W instead of 512W, a 495W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron M P4600 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,877 vs 1,886).

Celeron M P4600

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌2911.8% higher power demand at 512W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 887 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M P4600 better than Celeron 887?

Yes. Celeron M P4600 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.5% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron M P4600 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.6% 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 M P4600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron M P4600 is the better buy right now. Celeron M P4600 comes in in basically the same MSRP band at $86 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 0.5% better value on MSRP (21.9 vs 21.8 PassMark/$), 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 887 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 887 vs Celeron M P4600 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 887

The Celeron 887 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 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: 1,877 points. Launch price was $86.

Celeron M P4600

The Celeron M P4600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,886 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 887 and Celeron M P4600 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 887 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron M P4600 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Celeron M P4600. The Celeron 887 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron M P4600 uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 887 scores 1,877 against the Celeron M P4600's 1,886 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron M P4600. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 887 vs 2 MB on the Celeron M P4600.

Feature	Celeron 887	Celeron M P4600
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2 GHz+33%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	2 MB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB+100%
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,877	1,886
Geekbench 6 Single	233	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	415	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 887 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron M P4600 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 887	Celeron M P4600
Socket	BGA1023	PGA988
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 887) / not specified (Celeron M P4600). The Celeron 887 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron M P4600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 887 targets Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 887 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Celeron 887	Celeron M P4600
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Laptop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 887 was priced at $86, while the Celeron M P4600 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($86 vs $86), Celeron M P4600 was $0 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 887 delivers 21.8 pts/$ vs 21.9 pts/$ for the Celeron M P4600 — making the Celeron M P4600 the 0.5% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 887	Celeron M P4600
MSRP	$86	$86
Performance per Dollar	21.8	21.9
Release Date	2012	2010

Search Celeron 887 on Amazon

Search Celeron M P4600 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.