Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2815
Athlon II X2 240
Celeron N2815
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 N2815 is on rank 405, so the Celeron N2815 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 N2815
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2815 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2815 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
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 N2815
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 N2815
The Celeron N2815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 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 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,068 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 240 and Celeron N2815 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon II X2 240 versus 2.13 GHz on the Celeron N2815 — a 27.2% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 240 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The Athlon II X2 240 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N2815 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 240 scores 1,060 against the Celeron N2815's 1,068 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron N2815. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 240 vs 1 MB on the Celeron N2815.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2815 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz+31% | 2.13 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.8 GHz+51% | 1.86 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 1,060 | 1,068 |
| 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 N2815 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Athlon II X2 240 versus 1066 on the Celeron N2815 — the Celeron N2815 supports 198.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 240 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon II X2 240) vs 4 (Celeron N2815) — the Athlon II X2 240 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: 760G,785G,790GX,880G,890GX (Athlon II X2 240) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2815).
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2815 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | 1066+35433% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+209715100% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+300% | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 240) vs true (Celeron N2815). The Celeron N2815 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), 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; Celeron N2815 rivals AMD A4-1250.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2815 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Desktop | — |
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 N2815
