Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron N2940 1.83GHz Celeron Dual-Core 867 1.3GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 431% 608%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 615% 854%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 415% 587%
Watch Dogs Legion 615% 854%
Godfall 926% 1268%
FIFA 21 397% 563%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 502% 703%
Grand Theft Auto VI 773% 1064%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 726% 1001%
Genshin Impact 302% 436%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron N2940 1.83GHz 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 N2940 1.83GHz was released over a year more recently than the Celeron Dual-Core 867, and so the Celeron N2940 1.83GHz is likely to have better levels of support, and will be more optimized for running the latest games.

The Celeron N2940 1.83GHz has 2 more cores than the Celeron Dual-Core 867. With 4 cores, the Celeron N2940 1.83GHz is much less likely to struggle with the latest games, or bottleneck high-end graphics cards when running them.

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 N2940 1.83GHz and Celeron Dual-Core 867 are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Celeron N2940 1.83GHz has a 0.53 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is enough that it possibly indicates the superiority of the Celeron N2940 1.83GHz.

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 N2940 1.83GHz has a 1536 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron Dual-Core 867, and although the Celeron N2940 1.83GHz does not appear to have an L3 cache, its larger L2 cache means that it wins out in this area.

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.

The Celeron N2940 1.83GHz has a 9 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron Dual-Core 867, and was created with a 10 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Celeron N2940 1.83GHz will consume slightly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill slightly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

The Celeron N2940 1.83GHz has an on-board GPU, which means that it will be capable of running basic graphics applications (i.e., games) without the need for a dedicated graphics card. The Celeron Dual-Core 867, however, does not, and you will probably have to look for a dedicated card if you wish to use it at all.

For in-depth GPU comparisons with the Intel HD Graphics Desktop (Ivy Bridge), click on the following GPU overview comparison icon (visible throughout Game-Debate), and choose a GPU from the list to compare against:

On-board GPUs tend to be fairly awful in comparison to dedicated cards from the likes of AMD or Nvidia, but as they are built into the CPU, they also tend to be cheaper and require far less power to run (this makes them a good choice for laptops). We would recommend a dedicated card for running the latest games, but integrated GPUs are improving all the time and casual gamers may find less recent games perform perfectly acceptably.

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameBay Trail-MSandy Bridge
MoBo SocketBGA 1170BGA 1023
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date23 Jun 201401 Jan 2012
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores4vs2
CPU Threads4vs-
Clock Speed1.83 GHzvs1.3 GHz
Turbo Frequency2.25 GHzvs-
Max TDP8 Wvs17 W
Lithography22 nmvs32 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs-
Max Temperature105°Cvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size204 KBvs128 KB
L2 Cache Size2048 KBvs512 KB
L3 Cache Size-vs2 MB
Max Memory Size-vs-
Memory Channels-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

GraphicsIntel HD Graphics Desktop (Ivy Bridge)no
Base GPU Frequency-vs-
Max GPU Frequency-vs-
DirectX-vs-
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

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 ReviewA power optimized processor for SoC notebooks. Very low power consumption, as well as very limited performance. Only very modest games will run optimally.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.