Atom E3815 vs Celeron 2.40

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.

Atom E3815 vs Celeron 2.40 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.

Atom E3815 vs Celeron 2.40: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Atom E3815

2013

Why buy it

✅+5.8% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron 2.40 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Draws 73W instead of 512W, a 439W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Atom E3815.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (345 vs 365).
❌Launch MSRP is still $69 MSRP, while Atom E3815 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3815 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.40 better than Atom E3815?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.40 is ahead with 63.3% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3815 pulls ahead with 5.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3815 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.40 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.40 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $69 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 63.3% higher max boost clock. The compromise is that Atom E3815 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 5.8% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom E3815 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E3815 vs Celeron 2.40 Technical Specifications

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

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 220.1% 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 — 300% 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+220%	DDR1-333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+300%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	Yes	No
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.