Celeron 1000M vs Athlon II X2 250
Celeron 1000M
Athlon II X2 250
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron 1000M is positioned at rank 1026 and the Athlon II X2 250 is on rank 955, so the Athlon II X2 250 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1000M
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 250
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 1000M | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 1000M | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+479%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 1000M and Athlon II X2 250
Celeron 1000M
The Celeron 1000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.
Athlon II X2 250
The Athlon II X2 250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 June 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,080 points. Launch price was $39.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 1000M and Athlon II X2 250 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M versus 3 GHz on the Athlon II X2 250 — a 50% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 250 (base: 1.8 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Celeron 1000M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Athlon II X2 250 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1000M scores 1,070 against the Athlon II X2 250's 1,080 — a 0.9% lead for the Athlon II X2 250. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1000M vs 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 250.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.8 GHz | 3 GHz+67% |
| Base Clock | 1.8 GHz | 3 GHz+67% |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 2 MB+700% |
| Process | 22 nm-51% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,070 | 1,080 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 1000M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon II X2 250 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1000M versus 1333 on the Athlon II X2 250 — the Athlon II X2 250 supports 199.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1000M) vs 0 (Athlon II X2 250) — the Celeron 1000M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M) and AM2+,AM3 (Athlon II X2 250).
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA988 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | 1333+44333% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB+209715100% | 16 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Celeron 1000M) / true (Athlon II X2 250). The Celeron 1000M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Athlon II X2 250 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 250 rivals Pentium E5700.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | None |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | true |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 1000M launched at $86 MSRP, while the Athlon II X2 250 debuted at $87.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $86-1% | $87 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $15 |
| Release Date | 2013 | 2009 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 1000M and Athlon II X2 250
