Athlon II X2 265 vs Celeron N2840
Athlon II X2 265
Celeron N2840
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 265 is positioned at rank 884 and the Celeron N2840 is on rank 157, so the Celeron N2840 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 265
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2840
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 265 | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 265 | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ 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 265 and Celeron N2840
Athlon II X2 265
The Athlon II X2 265 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,324 points. Launch price was $83.
Celeron N2840
The Celeron N2840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.16 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 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: 1,331 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 265 and Celeron N2840 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the Athlon II X2 265 versus 2.58 GHz on the Celeron N2840 — a 24.5% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 265 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 2.16 GHz). The Athlon II X2 265 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N2840 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 265 scores 1,324 against the Celeron N2840's 1,331 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N2840. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 275 vs 230, a 17.8% lead for the Athlon II X2 265 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 520 vs 430 (18.9% advantage for the Athlon II X2 265). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 265 | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3.3 GHz+28% | 2.58 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.3 GHz+53% | 2.16 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 1,324 | 1,331 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 275+20% | 230 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 520+21% | 430 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X2 265 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2840 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Athlon II X2 265 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II X2 265) vs 4 (Celeron N2840) — the Celeron N2840 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: 760G,780G,785G,790GX,870,880G,890GX,890FX (Athlon II X2 265) and SoC (Celeron N2840).
| Feature | Athlon II X2 265 | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | DDR3L-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 265) vs VT-x (Celeron N2840). The Celeron N2840 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon II X2 265 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II X2 265 targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron N2840 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 265 rivals Pentium E6700; Celeron N2840 rivals AMD A6-6310.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 265 | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | Netbook |
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 265 and Celeron N2840
