Celeron J1850 vs E2-3200

Celeron J1850 vs E2-3200 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J1850

4 / 4

1,035

0.0%

1,050

+1.4%

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 J1850 vs E2-3200 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 J1850 vs E2-3200: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J1850

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 65W, a 63W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while E2-3200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,035 vs 1,050).
❌Launch MSRP is still $82 MSRP, while E2-3200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

E2-3200

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌3150% higher power demand at 65W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1850 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3200 better than Celeron J1850?

Yes. E2-3200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, E2-3200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.2% more average FPS across 39 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E2-3200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-3200 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. E2-3200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $82 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron J1850 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 2.2% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron J1850 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J1850 vs E2-3200 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J1850

The Celeron J1850 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 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,035 points. Launch price was $82.

E2-3200

The E2-3200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) 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 (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,050 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J1850 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the E2-3200 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J1850 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron J1850 versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3200 — a 18.2% clock advantage for the E2-3200 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Celeron J1850 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-3200 uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1850 scores 1,035 against the E2-3200's 1,050 — a 1.4% lead for the E2-3200. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1850 vs 0 kB on the E2-3200.

Feature	Celeron J1850	E2-3200
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.4 GHz+20%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.4 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	2 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,035	1,050+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	180	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	450	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1850 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-3200 uses FM1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J1850	E2-3200
Socket	FCBGA1170	FM1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
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 J1850) / not specified (E2-3200). The Celeron J1850 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the E2-3200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1850 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1850 rivals Pentium J2900.