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 B820 vs Celeron E1400 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 B820 vs Celeron E1400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron B820

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron E1400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.9 vs 13.5 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Celeron E1400

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $33 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 51.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.5 vs 8.9 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron B820 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (715 vs 765).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B820 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B820 better than Celeron E1400?

Yes. Celeron B820 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 7% 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, Celeron B820 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.9% 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 B820 is the stronger fit. You are getting 7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B820 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron B820 comes in 62.3% more expensive on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron E1400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 51.7% better value on paper (13.5 vs 8.9 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Celeron B820 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2008) 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 B820 vs Celeron E1400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron B820

The Celeron B820 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 765 points. Launch price was $86.

Celeron E1400

The Celeron E1400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 April 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $57.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron B820 and Celeron E1400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron B820 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron E1400 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Celeron E1400 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron B820 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron E1400 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B820 scores 765 against the Celeron E1400's 715 — a 6.8% lead for the Celeron B820. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B820 vs 0 kB on the Celeron E1400.

Feature	Celeron B820	Celeron E1400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2 GHz+18%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	2 GHz+18%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (total)+100%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Allendale (2006−2009)
PassMark	765+7%	715
Geekbench 6 Single	—	260
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	470

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron B820 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron E1400 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron B820 versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1400 — the Celeron B820 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B820 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. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron B820) vs 0 (Celeron E1400) — the Celeron B820 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B820) and G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1400).

Feature	Celeron B820	Celeron E1400
Socket	PGA988	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron B820) vs No (Celeron E1400). The Celeron B820 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron E1400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B820 targets Budget, Celeron E1400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B820 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron E1400 rivals Pentium E2180.

Feature	Celeron B820	Celeron E1400
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	No
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron B820 was priced at $86, while the Celeron E1400 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($86 vs $53), Celeron E1400 was $33 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron B820 delivers 8.9 pts/$ vs 13.5 pts/$ for the Celeron E1400 — making the Celeron E1400 the 41.1% better value option.

Feature	Celeron B820	Celeron E1400
MSRP	$86	$53-38%
Performance per Dollar	8.9	13.5+52%
Release Date	2012	2008

Search Celeron B820 on Amazon

Search Celeron E1400 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.