Celeron B840 vs Celeron 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 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 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% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Celeron T1700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
7.5% HIGHER MSRP
$86 MSRPvs$80 MSRP

Celeron T1700

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $6 less on MSRP ($80 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,058 vs 1,065).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 2 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B840 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B840 better than Celeron T1700?

Yes. Celeron B840 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% 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 1.7% 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, Celeron B840 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).

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

Celeron B840 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron B840 comes in 7.5% more expensive on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $80 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron T1700 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 6.8% better value on paper (13.2 vs 12.4 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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 100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron B840 vs Celeron 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 T1700

The Celeron T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.83 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron B840 is built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron B840 scores 1,065 against the Celeron T1700's 1,058 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron B840. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B840 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1700.

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron T1700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz	—
Base Clock	1.9 GHz+4%	1.83 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)+100%	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	—
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	—
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 T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron T1700
Socket	PGA988	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron B840) / not specified (Celeron T1700). The Celeron B840 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B840 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B840 rivals Pentium B940.

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron T1700
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	true	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron B840 was priced at $86, while the Celeron T1700 came in at $80. On launch pricing ($86 vs $80), Celeron T1700 was $6 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron B840 delivers 12.4 pts/$ vs 13.2 pts/$ for the Celeron T1700 — making the Celeron T1700 the 6.6% better value option.

Feature	Celeron B840	Celeron T1700
MSRP	$86	$80-7%
Performance per Dollar	12.4	13.2+6%
Release Date	2011	2008

Search Celeron B840 on Amazon

Search Celeron T1700 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.