Celeron J1750 vs E1 Micro-6200T

Celeron J1750 vs E1 Micro-6200T Performance Spectrum

Celeron J1750

2 / 2

505

+6.3%

475

0.0%

Athlon XP 2100+

Athlon XP 2400+

Athlon XP 2700+

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Ryzen 5 8640HS

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 J1750 vs E1 Micro-6200T 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 J1750 vs E1 Micro-6200T: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 4W, a 3W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while E1 Micro-6200T needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

E1 Micro-6200T

2014

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron J1750 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (475 vs 505).
❌300% higher power demand at 4W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1750 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than E1 Micro-6200T?

Yes. Celeron J1750 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 and 6.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron J1750 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, Celeron J1750 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J1750 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

E1 Micro-6200T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J1750 vs E1 Micro-6200T Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J1750

The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 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 2.41 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: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

E1 Micro-6200T

The E1 Micro-6200T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Mullins (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron J1750 and E1 Micro-6200T share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 versus 1.4 GHz on the E1 Micro-6200T — a 53% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750 (base: 2.41 GHz vs 1 GHz). The Celeron J1750 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E1 Micro-6200T uses Mullins (2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1750 scores 505 against the E1 Micro-6200T's 475 — a 6.1% lead for the Celeron J1750.

Feature	Celeron J1750	E1 Micro-6200T
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.41 GHz+72%	1.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.41 GHz+141%	1 GHz
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	—
L2 Cache	1 MB	1024 kB
Process	22 nm-21%	28 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Mullins (2014)
PassMark	505+6%	475
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1750 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E1 Micro-6200T uses FT3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J1750	E1 Micro-6200T
Socket	FCBGA1170	FT3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J1750) / not specified (E1 Micro-6200T). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the E1 Micro-6200T requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.