Celeron 1007U vs E2-3000M

Celeron 1007U vs E2-3000M Performance Spectrum

Celeron 1007U

2 / 2

1,610

+0.8%

1,597

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

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 1007U vs E2-3000M 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 1007U vs E2-3000M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1007U

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 17W instead of 35W, a 18W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while E2-3000M needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

E2-3000M

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,597 vs 1,610).
❌105.9% higher power demand at 35W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1007U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1007U better than E2-3000M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, E2-3000M is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1007U pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1007U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1007U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 1007U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 1007U 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 1007U vs E2-3000M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1007U

The Celeron 1007U 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 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,610 points. Launch price was $86.

E2-3000M

The E2-3000M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,597 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1007U and E2-3000M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 1007U versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3000M — a 46.2% clock advantage for the E2-3000M (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Celeron 1007U uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-3000M uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1007U scores 1,610 against the E2-3000M's 1,597 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron 1007U. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1007U vs 0 kB on the E2-3000M.

Feature	Celeron 1007U	E2-3000M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.4 GHz+60%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.8 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,610	1,597

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1007U uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E2-3000M uses FS1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.