Celeron 887 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84

Celeron 887 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 887

2 / 2

1,877

0.0%

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84

2 / 2

1,886

+0.5%

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 X2 Ultra ZM-84 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 X2 Ultra ZM-84: 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

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,877 vs 1,886).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌750% higher power demand at 17W vs 2W.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 17W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 887 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 better than Celeron 887?

Yes. Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.8% 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, Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% 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, Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 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?

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% 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 1.8% in the shared gaming data.

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 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 887 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 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 X2 Ultra ZM-84

The Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Puma (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,886 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 887 and Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 887 versus 2.3 GHz on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 — a 42.1% clock advantage for the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84. The Celeron 887 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 uses Puma (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 887 scores 1,877 against the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84's 1,886 — a 0.5% lead for the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 887 vs 0 kB on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84.

Feature	Celeron 887	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.3 GHz+53%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+12700%	2 MB
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Puma (2008−2009)
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 Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 uses S1g2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 887	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84
Socket	BGA1023	S1g2
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 X2 Ultra ZM-84). The Celeron 887 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 887 targets Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 887 rivals Pentium 967.