Celeron 887 vs Core i7-2677M

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 Core i7-2677M 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 Core i7-2677M: 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

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (233 vs 562).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core i7-2677M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i7-2677M

2011

Why buy it

✅+141.2% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,875 vs 1,877).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 887 better than Core i7-2677M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-2677M is ahead with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 887 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark. Core i7-2677M also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 887 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 887 is the better buy right now. Celeron 887 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-2677M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (21.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 887 vs Core i7-2677M 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.

Core i7-2677M

The Core i7-2677M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 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: 1,875 points. Launch price was $317.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 887 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-2677M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 887 versus 2.9 GHz on the Core i7-2677M — a 63.6% clock advantage for the Core i7-2677M (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.8 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 i7-2677M's 1,875 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron 887. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 233 vs 562, a 82.8% lead for the Core i7-2677M that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 887 vs 4 MB on the Core i7-2677M.

Feature	Celeron 887	Core i7-2677M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.9 GHz+93%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.8 GHz+20%
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	1,875
Geekbench 6 Single	233	562+141%
Geekbench 6 Multi	415	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the BGA1023 socket with PCIe 2.0. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Celeron 887 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. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,HM70,HM76 (Celeron 887) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QS67,UM67 (Core i7-2677M).

Feature	Celeron 887	Core i7-2677M
Socket	BGA1023	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 887) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i7-2677M). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 887) and HD Graphics 3000 (Core i7-2677M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 887 targets Laptop, Core i7-2677M targets Ultrabook. Direct competitor: Celeron 887 rivals Pentium 967; Core i7-2677M rivals A6-3420M.

Feature	Celeron 887	Core i7-2677M
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	HD Graphics 3000
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Laptop	Ultrabook