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 925 vs Celeron J1750 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 925 vs Celeron J1750: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 925

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Celeron J1750 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1750 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron 925 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 925 better than Celeron J1750?

Yes. Celeron 925 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 925 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.4% 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, Celeron 925 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 925 is the better buy right now. Celeron 925 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 J1750 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 925 vs Celeron J1750 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 925

The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron J1750

The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J1750 is built on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Celeron J1750's 505 — a 3.9% lead for the Celeron 925. Both processors carry 1 MB L2 Cache of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 925	Celeron J1750
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	2.41 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	2.41 GHz+5%
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	—	1 MB
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	—	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	525+4%	505
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Celeron J1750 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Celeron 925) vs 2 (Celeron J1750). PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 925) vs 4 (Celeron J1750) — the Celeron J1750 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron 925) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).

Feature	Celeron 925	Celeron J1750
Socket	—	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 925) vs VT-x (Celeron J1750). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron 925 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget, Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.