Celeron 887 vs PRO A6-8550B

Celeron 887 vs PRO A6-8550B Performance Spectrum

Celeron 887

2 / 2

1,877

0.0%

1,882

+0.3%

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 887 vs PRO A6-8550B 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 PRO A6-8550B: 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 65W, a 48W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while PRO A6-8550B needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than PRO A6-8550B across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,877 vs 1,882).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while PRO A6-8550B mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

PRO A6-8550B

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 887 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is PRO A6-8550B better than Celeron 887?

Yes. PRO A6-8550B is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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, PRO A6-8550B is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% 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, PRO A6-8550B is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

PRO A6-8550B is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. PRO A6-8550B comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 887 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 3.0% in the shared gaming data.

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

PRO A6-8550B makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 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 887 vs PRO A6-8550B 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.

PRO A6-8550B

The PRO A6-8550B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Godaveri (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 1,882 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 887 and PRO A6-8550B share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 887 versus 4 GHz on the PRO A6-8550B — a 90.9% clock advantage for the PRO A6-8550B (base: 1.5 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Celeron 887 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the PRO A6-8550B uses Godaveri (2014−2016) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 887 scores 1,877 against the PRO A6-8550B's 1,882 — a 0.3% lead for the PRO A6-8550B.

Feature	Celeron 887	PRO A6-8550B
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	4 GHz+167%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	3.5 GHz+133%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1024 kB+300%
Process	32 nm	28 nm-13%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Godaveri (2014−2016)
PassMark	1,877	1,882
Geekbench 6 Single	233	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	415	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 887 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the PRO A6-8550B uses FM2+ (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 887	PRO A6-8550B
Socket	BGA1023	FM2+
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 887) / not specified (PRO A6-8550B). The Celeron 887 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the PRO A6-8550B requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 887 targets Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 887 rivals Pentium 967.