Celeron B840 vs Celeron 1000M

Celeron B840

2 Cores2 Thrd0 WWMax: 1.9 GHz2011

Celeron 1000M

2 Cores2 Thrd512 WWMax: 1.8 GHz2013

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron B840

2 / 2

1,065

0.0%

1,070

+0.5%

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron B840 is positioned at rank 1028 and the Celeron 1000M is on rank 1026, so the Celeron 1000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron B840

#1016

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

2370%

#1017

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

2335%

#1018

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

2144%

#1019

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

2134%

#1020

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

2115%

#1022

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

2042%

#1023

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1958%

#1024

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1955%

#1025

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1902%

#1028

Celeron B840

MSRP: $86|Avg: $15

100%

#1029

Celeron M 743

MSRP: $107|Avg: $15

100%

#1030

Core i7-3612QM

MSRP: $378|Avg: N/A

100%

#1031

Pentium 967

MSRP: $134|Avg: $10

99%

#1032

Core i5-4400E

MSRP: $266|Avg: $50

99%

#1034

Pentium Dual Core T4400

MSRP: $107|Avg: $5

97%

#1037

Core i7-8665UE

MSRP: $409|Avg: $409

96%

#1038

Celeron T3300

MSRP: $86|Avg: $15

94%

#1039

Celeron Dual-Core T3300

MSRP: $86|Avg: $30

94%

#1042

Core i7-3612QE

MSRP: $426|Avg: $50

93%

#1043

A10-7300

MSRP: $150|Avg: $50

93%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1000M

#1014

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

2359%

#1015

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

2324%

#1016

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

2133%

#1017

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

2124%

#1018

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

2104%

#1020

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

2032%

#1021

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1949%

#1022

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1945%

#1023

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1893%

#1026

Celeron 1000M

MSRP: $86|Avg: N/A

100%

#1028

Celeron B840

MSRP: $86|Avg: $15

100%

#1029

Celeron M 743

MSRP: $107|Avg: $15

99%

#1030

Core i7-3612QM

MSRP: $378|Avg: N/A

99%

#1031

Pentium 967

MSRP: $134|Avg: $10

98%

#1032

Core i5-4400E

MSRP: $266|Avg: $50

98%

#1034

Pentium Dual Core T4400

MSRP: $107|Avg: $5

96%

#1037

Core i7-8665UE

MSRP: $409|Avg: $409

95%

#1038

Celeron T3300

MSRP: $86|Avg: $15

94%

#1039

Celeron Dual-Core T3300

MSRP: $86|Avg: $30

94%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Celeron B840 leads in gaming performance. However, the Celeron 1000M is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 0.5% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	Celeron B840	Celeron 1000M
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($15)	⚠️ Higher cost ($86)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Celeron B840 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 83% cheaper ($15 vs $86) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Celeron B840	Celeron 1000M
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+471%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($15)	⚠️ Higher cost ($86)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Celeron B840 Benchmark Check

Celeron 1000M Benchmark Check

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron B840 and Celeron 1000M

Celeron B840

The Celeron B840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 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: 1,065 points. Launch price was $86.

Celeron 1000M

The Celeron 1000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron B840 and Celeron 1000M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron B840 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M — a 5.4% clock advantage for the Celeron B840 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Celeron B840 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 1000M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B840 scores 1,065 against the Celeron 1000M's 1,070 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron 1000M. Both processors carry 2 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron 1000M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+6%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz+6%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,065	1,070
Geekbench 6 Single	450	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	790	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA988 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches 1333 on the Celeron B840 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1000M — the Celeron B840 supports 199.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67 (Celeron B840) and Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M).

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron 1000M
Socket	PGA988	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	1333+44333%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	16	32 GB+209715100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron B840) / not specified (Celeron 1000M). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B840) and Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1000M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B840 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B840 rivals Pentium B940.

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron 1000M
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	true	—
Target Use	Budget	—