Celeron 887 vs Turion II M500

Celeron 887 vs Turion II M500 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 887

2 / 2

1,877

+0.6%

1,865

0.0%

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 Turion II M500 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 Turion II M500: 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

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Turion II M500 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion II M500 across 15 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Turion II M500 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1600% higher power demand at 17W vs 1W.

Turion II M500

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.9% higher average FPS across 15 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 17W, a 16W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,865 vs 1,877).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 887 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 887 better than Turion II M500?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion II M500 is ahead with a 6.9% average FPS lead across 15 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 887 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

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 0.6% 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 $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The compromise is that Turion II M500 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 6.9% average FPS lead across 15 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (21.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2009) 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 Turion II M500 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.

Turion II M500

The Turion II M500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Caspian (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g3. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,865 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 887 and Turion II M500 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 887 versus 2.2 GHz on the Turion II M500 — a 37.8% clock advantage for the Turion II M500. The Celeron 887 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Turion II M500 uses Caspian (2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 887 scores 1,877 against the Turion II M500's 1,865 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 887.

Feature	Celeron 887	Turion II M500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.2 GHz+47%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Caspian (2009)
PassMark	1,877	1,865
Geekbench 6 Single	233	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	415	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 887 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion II M500 uses S1g3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 887	Turion II M500
Socket	BGA1023	S1g3
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 (Turion II M500). The Celeron 887 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Turion II M500 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 887 targets Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 887 rivals Pentium 967.