Atom Z670 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 Z670 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 Z670 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 Z670

2011

Why buy it

✅+8.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 73W, a 70W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 600, while Celeron 2.40 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Atom Z670.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (345 vs 375).
❌Launch MSRP is still $69 MSRP, while Atom Z670 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2333.3% higher power demand at 73W vs 3W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom Z670 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom Z670 better than Celeron 2.40?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.40 is ahead with 60% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z670 pulls ahead with 8.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z670 is the stronger fit. You are getting 8.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom Z670 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom Z670 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $69 MSRP, and it still gives you 8.7% better PassMark. Celeron 2.40 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2003 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Atom Z670 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom Z670 vs Celeron 2.40 Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z670

The Atom Z670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 April 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Lincroft (2010−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: T-PBGA518. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 375 points. Launch price was $75.

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 Z670 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Celeron 2.40's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Atom Z670 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Atom Z670 uses the Lincroft (2010−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z670 scores 375 against the Celeron 2.40's 345 — a 8.3% lead for the Atom Z670. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom Z670	Celeron 2.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.4 GHz+60%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+300%	128 kB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	Lincroft (2010−2011)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	375+9%	345
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	150

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z670 uses the T-PBGA518 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 DDR2-800 on the Atom Z670 versus DDR1-333 on the Celeron 2.40 — the Atom Z670 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 SM35 (Atom Z670) and Intel 845,Intel 865 (Celeron 2.40).

Feature	Atom Z670	Celeron 2.40
Socket	T-PBGA518	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800+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 Z670) / None (Celeron 2.40). The Atom Z670 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 600), 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.