Atom N455 vs E-240

Atom N455 vs E-240 Performance Spectrum

Atom N455

1 / 2

345

+2.1%

338

0.0%

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 N455 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 N455 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 N455

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 3150, while E-240 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

E-240

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom N455 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (338 vs 345).
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom N455 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom N455 better than E-240?

Yes. Atom N455 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom N455 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.3% 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, Atom N455 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom N455 still makes the most sense overall. Atom N455 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom N455 vs E-240 Technical Specifications

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

Atom N455

The Atom N455 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Pinetrail (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.66 GHz, with boost up to 1.67 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 6.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $64.

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 N455 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the E-240's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.67 GHz on the Atom N455 versus 1.5 GHz on the E-240 — a 10.7% clock advantage for the Atom N455. The Atom N455 uses the Pinetrail (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the E-240 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Atom N455 scores 345 against the E-240's 338 — a 2% lead for the Atom N455. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom N455	E-240
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.67 GHz+11%	1.5 GHz
Base Clock	1.66 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	45 nm	40 nm-11%
Architecture	Pinetrail (2009−2011)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	345+2%	338