
Athlon II X2 240

Celeron N2820
Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2820 Performance Spectrum
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 N2820 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2820: 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
2009Why buy it
- ✅+75% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (AMD Stock), unlike Celeron N2820.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron N2820 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while Celeron N2820 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌828.6% higher power demand at 65W vs 7W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2820 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Celeron N2820
2013Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +3.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 7W instead of 65W, a 58W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Athlon II X2 240 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (400 vs 700).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 240.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron N2820 better than Athlon II X2 240?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2820 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 N2820
The Celeron N2820 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 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.39 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: 1,061 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 240 and Celeron N2820 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon II X2 240 versus 2.39 GHz on the Celeron N2820 — a 15.8% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 240 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Athlon II X2 240 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N2820 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 240 scores 1,060 against the Celeron N2820's 1,061 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron N2820. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 373 vs 220, a 51.6% lead for the Athlon II X2 240 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 700 vs 400 (54.5% advantage for the Athlon II X2 240). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz+17% | 2.39 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.8 GHz+31% | 2.13 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512K (per core)+25500% |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 1,060 | 1,061 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 373+70% | 220 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 700+75% | 400 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X2 240 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2820 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 N2820) — 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 SoC (Celeron N2820).
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | DDR3L-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 VT-x (Celeron N2820). The Celeron N2820 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, Celeron N2820 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 240 rivals Pentium E5400; Celeron N2820 rivals AMD A6-6310.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 240 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x |
| Target Use | Desktop | Netbook |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.















