Celeron 1000M vs E-450

Celeron 1000M vs E-450 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 1000M

2 / 2

1,070

+0.7%

1,063

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.

Celeron 1000M vs E-450 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.

Celeron 1000M vs E-450: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1000M

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while E-450 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E-450 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2744.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 18W.

E-450

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 18W instead of 512W, a 494W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,063 vs 1,070).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1000M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1000M better than E-450?

Yes. Celeron 1000M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.7% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 1000M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.6% 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 1000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1000M is the better buy right now. Celeron 1000M comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 1000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 1000M vs E-450 Technical Specifications

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

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.

E-450

The E-450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.65 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 1,063 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1000M and E-450 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M versus 1.65 GHz on the E-450 — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Celeron 1000M. The Celeron 1000M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E-450 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1000M scores 1,070 against the E-450's 1,063 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron 1000M. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1000M vs 0 kB on the E-450.

Feature	Celeron 1000M	E-450
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+9%	1.65 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	22 nm-45%	40 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,070	1,063