Celeron T1600 vs Celeron 867

Celeron T1600

35 WW2008

Celeron 867

2 Cores2 Thrd17 WWMax: 1.3 GHz2012

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron T1600

715

0.0%

Mobile Pentium 4 2.66

755

+5.6%

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron T1600 is positioned at rank 1173 and the Celeron 867 is on rank 1111, so the Celeron 867 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron T1600

#1161

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

4392%

#1162

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

4328%

#1163

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

3973%

#1164

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

3955%

#1165

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

3919%

#1167

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

3784%

#1168

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

3629%

#1169

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

3623%

#1170

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

3525%

#1173

Celeron T1600

MSRP: $107|Avg: $15

100%

#1174

Pro A12-8800B

MSRP: $400|Avg: $40

100%

#1176

Core i7-2637M

MSRP: $289|Avg: N/A

98%

#1177

Athlon PRO 3045B

MSRP: $426|Avg: $180

97%

#1178

Core 2 Duo SL9600

MSRP: $316|Avg: N/A

97%

#1179

Core 2 Duo T5600

MSRP: $241|Avg: N/A

97%

#1180

Pentium N3510

MSRP: $161|Avg: $161

97%

#1181

Core i7-7Y75

MSRP: $393|Avg: $285

97%

#1183

Core i7-4500U

MSRP: $398|Avg: N/A

94%

#1185

Athlon Neo X2 L325

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

92%

#1186

Core i3-2370M

MSRP: $225|Avg: N/A

91%

#1187

Core i3-3217UE

MSRP: $225|Avg: $35

91%

#1188

Celeron T3000

MSRP: $150|Avg: $54

90%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 867

#1099

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

3342%

#1100

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

3293%

#1101

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

3023%

#1102

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

3009%

#1103

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

2982%

#1105

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

2879%

#1106

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

2761%

#1107

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

2756%

#1108

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

2682%

#1111

Celeron 867

MSRP: $86|Avg: $15

100%

#1112

Pentium B970

MSRP: $125|Avg: $39

100%

#1113

Core i5-2410M

MSRP: $225|Avg: N/A

99%

#1114

Pentium T2370

MSRP: $86|Avg: $10

99%

#1115

Pentium N3710

MSRP: $161|Avg: $50

98%

#1116

Core m3-7Y30

MSRP: $281|Avg: $281

98%

#1117

Pentium 977

MSRP: $134|Avg: $10

98%

#1118

Core i7-2715QE

MSRP: $378|Avg: $50

97%

#1119

VIA Nano U2250

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

97%

#1121

Core i5-560M

MSRP: $225|Avg: N/A

96%

#1122

Pentium U5600

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

95%

#1123

Core m5-6Y57

MSRP: $281|Avg: $281

95%

#1125

Core i7-610E

MSRP: $250|Avg: $40

94%

#1126

Core i5-5350U

MSRP: $315|Avg: N/A

94%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Celeron 867 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Celeron T1600 in both compute-intensive tasks (5.4% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Celeron T1600	Celeron 867
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	Equivalent pricing	Equivalent pricing
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Celeron 867 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 0% cheaper ($15 vs $15) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Celeron T1600	Celeron 867
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+6%)
Upfront Cost	Equivalent pricing	Equivalent pricing

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Celeron T1600 Benchmark Check

Celeron 867 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron T1600 and Celeron 867

Celeron T1600

The Celeron T1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.66 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 867

The Celeron 867 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 755 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 867 is built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron T1600 scores 715 against the Celeron 867's 755 — a 5.4% lead for the Celeron 867. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1600 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 867.

Feature	Celeron T1600	Celeron 867
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.66 GHz+28%	1.3 GHz
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	2 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	—	256K (per core)
Process	65 nm	32 nm-51%
Architecture	—	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	715	755+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron T1600 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 867 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron T1600	Celeron 867
Socket	PGA478	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	16 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	❌
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron T1600) / VT-x (Celeron 867). The Celeron 867 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Celeron T1600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 867 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 867 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Celeron T1600	Celeron 867
Integrated GPU	—	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

The Celeron T1600 launched at $107 MSRP, while the Celeron 867 debuted at $86. At current prices ($15 vs $15), the Celeron 867 is $0 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron T1600 delivers 47.7 pts/$ vs 50.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 867 — making the Celeron 867 the 5.4% better value option.