Atom E680 vs E-240

Atom E680 vs E-240 Performance Spectrum

Atom E680

1 / 2

325

0.0%

338

+4.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Atom E680 vs E-240 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 E680 vs E-240: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E680

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 600, while E-240 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (325 vs 338).

E-240

2011

Why buy it

✅+4% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E680 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E-240 better than Atom E680?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom E680 is ahead with 6.7% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E-240 pulls ahead with 4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-240 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

E-240 still makes the most sense overall. E-240 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 4% better PassMark.

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

E-240 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E680 vs E-240 Technical Specifications

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

Atom E680

The Atom E680 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Tunnel Creek (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA676. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 325 points. Launch price was $69.

E-240

The E-240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 338 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E680 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the E-240's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Atom E680 versus 1.5 GHz on the E-240 — a 6.5% clock advantage for the Atom E680. The Atom E680 uses the Tunnel Creek (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the E-240 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E680 scores 325 against the E-240's 338 — a 3.9% lead for the E-240. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom E680	E-240
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz+7%	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512 kB
Process	45 nm	40 nm-11%
Architecture	Tunnel Creek (2010)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	325	338+4%