Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron 1000M
Athlon II X2 240
Celeron 1000M
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon II X2 240 is positioned at rank 852 and the Celeron 1000M is on rank 1026, so the Athlon II X2 240 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 240
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1000M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+752%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon II X2 240 and Celeron 1000M
Athlon II X2 240
The Athlon II X2 240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 July 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,060 points. Launch price was $35.
Celeron 1000M
The Celeron 1000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 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 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 240 and Celeron 1000M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon II X2 240 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M — a 43.5% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 240 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Athlon II X2 240 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 1000M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 240 scores 1,060 against the Celeron 1000M's 1,070 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron 1000M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 240 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1000M.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz+56% | 1.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.8 GHz+56% | 1.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,060 | 1,070 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 373 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 700 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X2 240 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1000M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 760G,785G,790GX,880G,890GX (Athlon II X2 240) and Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M).
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | PGA988 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | DDR3-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 32 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 240) / not specified (Celeron 1000M). The Celeron 1000M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Athlon II X2 240 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II X2 240 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 240 rivals Pentium E5400.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Athlon II X2 240 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron 1000M debuted at $86.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60-30% | $86 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | — |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2013 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon II X2 240 and Celeron 1000M
