Celeron B820 vs E1-2200

Celeron B820 vs E1-2200 Performance Spectrum

Celeron B820

2 / 2

765

0.0%

802

+4.8%

Athlon XP 3200+

Athlon 64 3300+

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Athlon 64 FX-55

Ryzen 7 4700G

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

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 B820 vs E1-2200 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 E1-2200: 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

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while E1-2200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E1-2200 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (765 vs 802).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E1-2200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌288.9% higher power demand at 35W vs 9W.

E1-2200

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 9W instead of 35W, a 26W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B820 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E1-2200 better than Celeron B820?

Yes. E1-2200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4.8% 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, E1-2200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% 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, E1-2200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E1-2200 is still the much better call for a fresh build. E1-2200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron B820 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (8.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

E1-2200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 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 B820 vs E1-2200 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.

E1-2200

The E1-2200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.05 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 802 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron B820 and E1-2200 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron B820 versus 1.05 GHz on the E1-2200 — a 47.3% clock advantage for the Celeron B820. The Celeron B820 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the E1-2200 uses Kabini (2013−2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B820 scores 765 against the E1-2200's 802 — a 4.7% lead for the E1-2200.

Feature	Celeron B820	E1-2200
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz+62%	1.05 GHz
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1024 kB+300%
Process	32 nm	28 nm-13%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	765	802+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron B820 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E1-2200 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron B820	E1-2200
Socket	PGA988	FT3
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 B820) / not specified (E1-2200). The Celeron B820 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the E1-2200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B820 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B820 rivals Pentium 967.