Celeron 887 vs Core i7-2637M

CPU

GPU

Celeron 887

2 Cores2 Thrd17 WWMax: 1.5 GHz2012

Core i7-2637M

2 Cores4 Thrd17 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2011

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron 887

2 / 2

1,877

0.0%

1,889

+0.6%

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron 887 is positioned at rank 837 and the Core i7-2637M is on rank 1176, so the Celeron 887 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 887

#825

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

1344%

#826

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

1324%

#827

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

1216%

#828

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

1210%

#829

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

1199%

#831

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

1158%

#832

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1110%

#833

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1109%

#834

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1079%

#837

Celeron 887

MSRP: $86|Avg: $15

100%

#852

Pentium P6300

MSRP: $80|Avg: $10

96%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Core i7-2637M

#1164

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

4486%

#1165

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

4420%

#1166

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

4058%

#1167

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

4040%

#1168

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

4003%

#1170

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

3865%

#1171

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

3706%

#1172

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

3700%

#1173

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

3601%

#1176

Core i7-2637M

MSRP: $289|Avg: N/A

100%

#1177

Core 2 Duo SL9600

MSRP: $316|Avg: N/A

99%

#1178

Athlon PRO 3045B

MSRP: $426|Avg: $180

99%

#1179

Core 2 Duo T5600

MSRP: $241|Avg: N/A

99%

#1180

Pentium N3510

MSRP: $161|Avg: $161

99%

#1181

Core i7-7Y75

MSRP: $393|Avg: $285

99%

#1183

Core i7-4500U

MSRP: $398|Avg: N/A

96%

#1185

Athlon Neo X2 L325

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

94%

#1186

Core i3-2370M

MSRP: $225|Avg: N/A

93%

#1187

Core i3-3217UE

MSRP: $225|Avg: $35

93%

#1188

Celeron T3000

MSRP: $150|Avg: $54

92%

#1189

Core m7-6Y75

MSRP: $393|Avg: $393

92%

#1190

Core M-5Y10

MSRP: $281|Avg: $20

89%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Core i7-2637M delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Celeron 887 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.6% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Celeron 887	Core i7-2637M
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($15)	⚠️ Higher cost ($289)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Value Proposition: While both processors are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Celeron 887 holds the technical lead in efficiency. Priced at $15 (vs $289), it costs 95% less. While offering basic entry-level performance, it results in a 1814% higher cost efficiency score compared to the Core i7-2637M.

Insight	Celeron 887	Core i7-2637M
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+1814%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($15)	⚠️ Higher cost ($289)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Celeron 887 Benchmark Check

Core i7-2637M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 887 and Core i7-2637M

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.

Core i7-2637M

The Core i7-2637M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 1,889 points. Launch price was $289.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 887 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-2637M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 887 versus 2.8 GHz on the Core i7-2637M — a 60.5% clock advantage for the Core i7-2637M (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). Both are built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture using a 32 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron 887 scores 1,877 against the Core i7-2637M's 1,889 — a 0.6% lead for the Core i7-2637M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 233 vs 350, a 40.1% lead for the Core i7-2637M that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 415 vs 628 (40.8% advantage for the Core i7-2637M). L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 887 vs 4 MB on the Core i7-2637M.

Feature	Celeron 887	Core i7-2637M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.8 GHz+87%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.7 GHz+13%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	4 MB+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB+100%
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,877	1,889
Geekbench 6 Single	233	350+50%
Geekbench 6 Multi	415	628+51%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the BGA1023 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 887 versus 1333 on the Core i7-2637M — the Core i7-2637M supports 199.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 887 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,HM70,HM76 (Celeron 887) and HM65,HM67,QM67 (Core i7-2637M).

Feature	Celeron 887	Core i7-2637M
Socket	BGA1023	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	1333+44333%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+209715100%	8
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 887) vs true (Core i7-2637M). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 887) and Intel HD Graphics 3000 (Core i7-2637M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 887 targets Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 887 rivals Pentium 967.