Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2815

Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2815 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X2 240

2 / 2

1,060

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2815

2 / 2

1,068

+0.8%

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 X2 240 vs Celeron N2815 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 X2 240 vs Celeron N2815: 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 X2 240

2009

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (AMD Stock), unlike Celeron N2815.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,060 vs 1,068).
❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while Celeron N2815 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2815 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N2815

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Athlon II X2 240 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 240.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2815 better than Athlon II X2 240?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon II X2 240 is ahead with a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2815 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2815 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2815 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N2815 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark. Athlon II X2 240 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (17.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3.

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

Celeron N2815 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2815 Technical Specifications

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

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. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The Athlon II X2 240 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% 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
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
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.