Pentium 967 vs Pentium G2010

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.

Pentium 967 vs Pentium G2010 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.

Pentium 967 vs Pentium G2010: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Pentium 967

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 17W instead of 55W, a 38W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,640 vs 1,641).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.2 vs 25.6 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $64 MSRP).

Pentium G2010

2013

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Costs $70 less on MSRP ($64 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 109.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.6 vs 12.2 PassMark/$ ($64 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌223.5% higher power demand at 55W vs 17W.

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium G2010 better than Pentium 967?

Yes. Pentium G2010 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Pentium G2010 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, Pentium G2010 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Pentium G2010 is the better buy right now. Pentium G2010 comes in $70 cheaper on MSRP at $64 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 109.5% better value on MSRP (25.6 vs 12.2 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Pentium G2010 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011), 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Pentium 967 vs Pentium G2010 Technical Specifications

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

Pentium 967

The Pentium 967 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 October 2011 (14 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: 1,640 points. Launch price was $134.

Pentium G2010

The Pentium G2010 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 21 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 3072 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,641 points. Launch price was $466.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Pentium 967 and Pentium G2010 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Pentium 967 versus 2.8 GHz on the Pentium G2010 — a 73.2% clock advantage for the Pentium G2010 (base: 1.3 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Pentium 967 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Pentium G2010 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Pentium 967 scores 1,640 against the Pentium G2010's 1,641 — a 0.1% lead for the Pentium G2010. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Pentium 967 vs 3072 kB (total) on the Pentium G2010.

Feature	Pentium 967	Pentium G2010
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz	2.8 GHz+115%
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	2.8 GHz+115%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	3072 kB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,640	1,641

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Pentium 967 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Pentium G2010 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Pentium 967	Pentium G2010
Socket	BGA1023	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Pentium 967 was priced at $134, while the Pentium G2010 came in at $64. On launch pricing ($134 vs $64), Pentium G2010 was $70 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Pentium 967 delivers 12.2 pts/$ vs 25.6 pts/$ for the Pentium G2010 — making the Pentium G2010 the 70.8% better value option.

Feature	Pentium 967	Pentium G2010
MSRP	$134	$64-52%
Performance per Dollar	12.2	25.6+110%
Release Date	2011	2013

Search Pentium 967 on Amazon

Search Pentium G2010 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.