Atom Z2560 vs Celeron N2940

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 Z2560 vs Celeron N2940 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 Z2560 vs Celeron N2940: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z2560

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 7W, a 4W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron N2940

2014

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,054 vs 1,056).
❌133.3% higher power demand at 7W vs 3W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom Z2560 better than Celeron N2940?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2940 is ahead with a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z2560 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z2560 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom Z2560 still makes the most sense overall. Atom Z2560 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N2940 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom Z2560 vs Celeron N2940 Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z2560

The Atom Z2560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 February 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Clovertrail (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FC-MB4760. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,056 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron N2940

The Celeron N2940 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 2.25 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,054 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z2560 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2940 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N2940 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Atom Z2560 versus 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2940 — a 33.8% clock advantage for the Celeron N2940. The Atom Z2560 uses the Clovertrail (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N2940 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z2560 scores 1,056 against the Celeron N2940's 1,054 — a 0.2% lead for the Atom Z2560. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom Z2560	Celeron N2940
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.25 GHz+41%
Base Clock	—	1.83 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Clovertrail (2013)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,056	1,054
Geekbench 6 Single	—	240
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	850

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z2560 uses the FC-MB4760 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2940 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR2-1066 on the Atom Z2560 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2940 — the Celeron N2940 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N2940 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Atom Z2560) vs 4 (Celeron N2940) — the Celeron N2940 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel BGA1264 (Atom Z2560) and SoC (Celeron N2940).

Feature	Atom Z2560	Celeron N2940
Socket	FC-MB4760	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR2-1066	DDR3L-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	8 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom Z2560) / VT-x (Celeron N2940). Both include integrated graphics — PowerVR SGX544MP2 (Atom Z2560) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2940) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2940 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N2940 rivals AMD A6-6310.