Atom E3815 vs Celeron 2.40
Atom E3815
Celeron 2.40
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 Atom E3815 is positioned at rank 1103 and the Celeron 2.40 is on rank 1072, so the Celeron 2.40 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Atom E3815
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.40
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Atom E3815 | Celeron 2.40 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($13) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-I (2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (NetBurst (2000−2006) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Atom E3815 | Celeron 2.40 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($13) |
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 Atom E3815 and Celeron 2.40
Atom E3815
The Atom E3815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 October 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.47 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 365 points. Launch price was $134.
Celeron 2.40
The Celeron 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Atom E3815 and Celeron 2.40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.47 GHz on the Atom E3815 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 — a 48.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Atom E3815 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3815 scores 365 against the Celeron 2.40's 345 — a 5.6% lead for the Atom E3815. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Atom E3815 | Celeron 2.40 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.47 GHz | 2.4 GHz+63% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core)+300% | 128 kB |
| Process | 22 nm-83% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Bay Trail-I (2013) | NetBurst (2000−2006) |
| PassMark | 365+6% | 345 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 150 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 150 |
Memory & Platform
The Atom E3815 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2.40 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3815 versus DDR1-333 on the Celeron 2.40 — the Atom E3815 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom E3815 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3815) vs 0 (Celeron 2.40) — the Atom E3815 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3815) and Intel 845,Intel 865 (Celeron 2.40).
| Feature | Atom E3815 | Celeron 2.40 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3L-1066+200% | DDR1-333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+300% | 2 GB |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 1 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 4 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3815) / None (Celeron 2.40). The Atom E3815 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron 2.40 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.
| Feature | Atom E3815 | Celeron 2.40 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) | None |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | None |
| Target Use | — | Legacy Desktop |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Atom E3815 and Celeron 2.40
