Celeron 1019Y vs E1-6010

Celeron 1019Y vs E1-6010 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 1019Y

2 / 2

1,005

0.0%

1,006

+0.1%

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 1019Y vs E1-6010 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 1019Y vs E1-6010: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1019Y

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while E1-6010 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,005 vs 1,006).
❌5020% higher power demand at 512W vs 10W.

E1-6010

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 512W, a 502W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1019Y can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E1-6010 better than Celeron 1019Y?

Yes. E1-6010 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% 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, E1-6010 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.7% 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, E1-6010 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E1-6010 still makes the most sense overall. E1-6010 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

E1-6010 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013) 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 1019Y vs E1-6010 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1019Y

The Celeron 1019Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 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 GHz, with boost up to 1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $153.

E1-6010

The E1-6010 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Beema (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.35 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,006 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1019Y and E1-6010 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the Celeron 1019Y versus 1.35 GHz on the E1-6010 — a 29.8% clock advantage for the E1-6010. The Celeron 1019Y uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E1-6010 uses Beema (2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1019Y scores 1,005 against the E1-6010's 1,006 — a 0.1% lead for the E1-6010.

Feature	Celeron 1019Y	E1-6010
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	1.35 GHz+35%
Base Clock	1 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	—
L2 Cache	512 kB	1024 kB+100%
Process	22 nm-21%	28 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Beema (2014)
PassMark	1,005	1,006

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1019Y uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E1-6010 uses FT3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 1019Y	E1-6010
Socket	BGA1023	FT3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 1019Y) / not specified (E1-6010). The Celeron 1019Y includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the E1-6010 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1019Y targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 1019Y rivals Pentium 2117U.