Celeron B840 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700

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 B840 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700 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 B840 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron B840

2011

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 Celeron Dual-Core T1700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron Dual-Core T1700 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,058 vs 1,065).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B840 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B840 better than Celeron Dual-Core T1700?

Yes. Celeron B840 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.7% 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 B840 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% 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 B840 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B840 is the better buy right now. Celeron B840 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 B840 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 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 B840 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Technical Specifications

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

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 Dual-Core T1700

The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.83 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron B840 and Celeron Dual-Core T1700 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron B840 versus 1.83 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 — a 3.8% clock advantage for the Celeron B840. The Celeron B840 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses Merom (2006−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B840 scores 1,065 against the Celeron Dual-Core T1700's 1,058 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron B840.

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+4%	1.83 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Merom (2006−2008)
PassMark	1,065	1,058
Geekbench 6 Single	450	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	790	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron B840 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1333 on the Celeron B840 versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 — the Celeron B840 supports 99.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B840 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron B840) vs 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) — the Celeron B840 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67 (Celeron B840) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700).

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Socket	PGA988	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	1333+100%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron B840) vs No (Celeron Dual-Core T1700). The Celeron B840 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B840 targets Budget, Celeron Dual-Core T1700 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B840 rivals Pentium B940; Celeron Dual-Core T1700 rivals Pentium T2390.