Celeron E1600 vs Celeron J1800

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 E1600 vs Celeron J1800 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 E1600 vs Celeron J1800: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E1600

2009

Why buy it

✅+106.7% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while Celeron J1800 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J1800

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron E1600 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (150 vs 310).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (250 vs 560).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E1600 better than Celeron J1800?

Yes. Celeron E1600 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 and 124% better Geekbench multi-core, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron E1600 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 E1600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 124% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E1600 is the better buy right now. Celeron E1600 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $53 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (15.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 J1800 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron E1600 vs Celeron J1800 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron E1600

The Celeron E1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 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: 815 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron J1800

The Celeron J1800 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 820 points. Launch price was $72.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron E1600 and Celeron J1800 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E1600 versus 2.58 GHz on the Celeron J1800 — a 7.2% clock advantage for the Celeron J1800 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.41 GHz). The Celeron E1600 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron J1800 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1600 scores 815 against the Celeron J1800's 820 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron J1800. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 310 vs 150, a 69.6% lead for the Celeron E1600 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 560 vs 250 (76.5% advantage for the Celeron E1600). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E1600 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1800.

Feature	Celeron E1600	Celeron J1800
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.58 GHz+8%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.41 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB (total)	1 MB+100%
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Allendale (2006−2009)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	815	820
Geekbench 6 Single	310+107%	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	560+124%	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E1600 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron J1800 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1600 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1800 — the Celeron J1800 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E1600) vs 4 (Celeron J1800) — the Celeron J1800 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1600) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1800).

Feature	Celeron E1600	Celeron J1800
Socket	LGA775	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3L-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron E1600) vs VT-x (Celeron J1800). The Celeron J1800 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron E1600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E1600 targets Budget, Celeron J1800 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron E1600 rivals Pentium E2220; Celeron J1800 rivals Pentium J2850.