Atom N435 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 N435 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 N435 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 N435

2011

Why buy it

✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 3150, while Celeron 2.40 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.40 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (335 vs 345).
❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 73W instead of 512W, a 439W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Atom N435.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $69 MSRP, while Atom N435 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom N435 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.40 better than Atom N435?

Yes. Celeron 2.40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.40 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2.40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3% 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 $69 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 N435 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom N435 vs Celeron 2.40 Technical Specifications

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

Atom N435

The Atom N435 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Pinetrail (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.33 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 335 points. Launch price was $69.

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

The Atom N435 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Celeron 2.40's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.33 GHz on the Atom N435 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 — a 57.4% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Atom N435 uses the Pinetrail (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Atom N435 scores 335 against the Celeron 2.40's 345 — a 2.9% lead for the Celeron 2.40.

Feature	Atom N435	Celeron 2.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	2.4 GHz+80%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB+300%	128 kB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	Pinetrail (2009−2011)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	335	345+3%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	150

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom N435 uses the FCBGA559 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 DDR3-800 on the Atom N435 versus DDR1-333 on the Celeron 2.40 — the Atom N435 supports 140.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 2 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel NM10 (Atom N435) and Intel 845,Intel 865 (Celeron 2.40).

Feature	Atom N435	Celeron 2.40
Socket	FCBGA559	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800+140%	DDR1-333
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom N435) / None (Celeron 2.40). The Atom N435 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 3150), 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.