Celeron J1800 vs Celeron P4500

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 J1800 vs Celeron P4500 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 J1800 vs Celeron P4500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J1800

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron P4500 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (820 vs 905).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 2 MB).

Celeron P4500

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron J1800 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron P4500 better than Celeron J1800?

Yes. Celeron P4500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 14.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 10.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron P4500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.6% 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 P4500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 10.4% 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 P4500 is the better buy right now. Celeron P4500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (10.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J1800 vs Celeron P4500 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Celeron P4500

The Celeron P4500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 905 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron J1800 and Celeron P4500 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.58 GHz on the Celeron J1800 versus 0.07 GHz on the Celeron P4500 — a 189.4% clock advantage for the Celeron J1800 (base: 2.41 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The Celeron J1800 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron P4500 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1800 scores 820 against the Celeron P4500's 905 — a 9.9% lead for the Celeron P4500. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1800 vs 2 MB on the Celeron P4500.

Feature	Celeron J1800	Celeron P4500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.58 GHz+3586%	0.07 GHz
Base Clock	2.41 GHz+30%	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	2 MB+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Westmere (2010−2011)
PassMark	820	905+10%
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1800 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron P4500 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1800 versus 1066 on the Celeron P4500 — the Celeron J1800 supports 25% 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: 4 (Celeron J1800) vs 16 (Celeron P4500) — the Celeron P4500 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1800) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Celeron P4500).

Feature	Celeron J1800	Celeron P4500
Socket	FCBGA1170	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron J1800) vs true (Celeron P4500). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron J1800) and Intel HD Graphics (Westmere) (Celeron P4500) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1800 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1800 rivals Pentium J2850; Celeron P4500 rivals Pentium P6000.