Celeron 887 vs E2-9000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-9000
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.61
+29.8%
Celeron 887
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.47

E2-9000 outperforms Celeron 887 by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-9000 and Celeron 887 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27862905
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.772.62
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)1 September 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

E2-9000 and Celeron 887 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.8 GHz1.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.5 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data15
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size124.5 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1200 Million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-9000 and Celeron 887 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketBGAFCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 887. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

E2-9000 and Celeron 887 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 887 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 887. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge)Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-9000 and Celeron 887 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 887.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

E2-9000 0.61
+29.8%
Celeron 887 0.47

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

E2-9000 967
+28.2%
Celeron 887 754

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

E2-9000 1787
Celeron 887 1877
+5%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

E2-9000 2897
Celeron 887 3597
+24.2%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

E2-9000 1556
+10%
Celeron 887 1414

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

E2-9000 36.23
+32.5%
Celeron 887 48

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

E2-9000 1
Celeron 887 1
+12.9%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

E2-9000 0.59
+1.7%
Celeron 887 0.58

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

E2-9000 0.7
+610%
Celeron 887 0.1

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

E2-9000 744
Celeron 887 986
+32.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 0.47
Recency 1 June 2016 1 September 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 17 Watt

E2-9000 has a 29.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.

The E2-9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 887 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-9000 and Celeron 887, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD E2-9000
E2-9000
Intel Celeron 887
Celeron 887

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.5 311 votes

Rate E2-9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 17 votes

Rate Celeron 887 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-9000 or Celeron 887, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.