Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron Dual-Core 867 1.3GHz Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 608% 435%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 854% 620%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 587% 418%
Watch Dogs Legion 854% 620%
FIFA 21 563% 400%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 703% 506%
Godfall 1268% 933%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1064% 779%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 1001% 732%
Genshin Impact 436% 305%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz is noticeably better than the Intel Celeron Dual-Core 867 1.3GHz when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The Celeron Dual-Core 867 was released less than a year after the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz, and so they are likely to have similar levels of support, and similarly optimized performance when running the latest games.

The Celeron Dual-Core 867 and the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz both have 2 cores, and so are quite likely to struggle with the latest games, or at least bottleneck high-end graphics cards when running them. With a decent accompanying GPU, the Celeron Dual-Core 867 and the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz may still be able to run slightly older games fairly effectively.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Celeron Dual-Core 867 and the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz are from the same family of CPUs, and thus their clock speeds are directly comparable. That isn't particularly helpful, however, as the Celeron Dual-Core 867 and the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz provide identical clock rates and thus extremely similar performance.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The Celeron Dual-Core 867 and the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz have the same L2 cache size, but the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz has a 1 MB bigger L3 cache, so in this area, it wins out over the Celeron Dual-Core 867.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

Both the Celeron Dual-Core 867 and the Core i3-2340UE 1.3GHz have the same TDP of 17 Watts, and were created with the same manufacturing size of 32 nm, which means they will affect your yearly electricity bill about equally.

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameSandy BridgeSandy Bridge
MoBo SocketBGA 1023BGA 1023
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date01 Jan 201219 Jun 2011
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores2vs2
Clock Speed1.3 GHzvs1.3 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP17 Wvs17 W
Lithography32 nmvs32 nm
Bit Width-vs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size128 KBvs128 KB
L2 Cache Size512 KBvs512 KB
L3 Cache Size2 MBvs3 MB
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsnono

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewSandy Bridge is the codename for a microarchitecture developed by Intel beginning in 2005 for central processing units in computers to replace the Nehalem microarchitecture. Intel demonstrated a Sandy Bridge processor in 2009, and released first products based on the architecture in January 2011 under the Core brand.Sandy Bridge is the codename for a microarchitecture developed by Intel beginning in 2005 for central processing units in computers to replace the Nehalem microarchitecture. Intel demonstrated a Sandy Bridge processor in 2009, and released first products based on the architecture in January 2011 under the Core brand. Originally, implementations targeted a 32 nanometer manufacturing process based on planar double-gate transistors. Subsequent products, codenamed Ivy Bridge, use a 22 nanometer process. The Ivy Bridge die shrink, known in the Intel Tick-Tock model as the "tick", is based on 3D tri-gate transistors. Intel demonstrated Ivy Bridge processors in 2011.