Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N2810

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N2810 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K125

1 / 1

1,491

+1.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2810

2 / 2

1,474

0.0%

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

Pentium Dual Core T4200

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.

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N2810 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.

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N2810: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon II Neo K125

2010

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 7W, a 6W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Celeron N2810 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2810 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N2810

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Athlon II Neo K125 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,474 vs 1,491).
❌600% higher power demand at 7W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II Neo K125 better than Celeron N2810?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2810 is ahead with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II Neo K125 pulls ahead with 1.2% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II Neo K125 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon II Neo K125 is the better buy right now. Athlon II Neo K125 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Celeron N2810 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (14.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N2810 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N2810 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K125

The Athlon II Neo K125 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,491 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron N2810

The Celeron N2810 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,474 points. Launch price was $260.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II Neo K125 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron N2810 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N2810 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K125 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron N2810 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N2810. The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the Geneva (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N2810 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K125 scores 1,491 against the Celeron N2810's 1,474 — a 1.1% lead for the Athlon II Neo K125.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	Celeron N2810
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2 GHz+18%
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Geneva (2010)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,491+1%	1,474

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2810 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Athlon II Neo K125 versus 1066 on the Celeron N2810 — the Celeron N2810 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N2810 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II Neo K125) vs 4 (Celeron N2810) — the Celeron N2810 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB2 (Athlon II Neo K125) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2810).

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	Celeron N2810
Socket	S1	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	1066+33%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon II Neo K125) / true (Celeron N2810). The Celeron N2810 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon II Neo K125 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N2810 rivals AMD A4-1250.