Celeron 1019Y vs E2-3000

Celeron 1019Y vs E2-3000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 1019Y

2 / 2

1,005

+1.5%

990

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 1019Y vs E2-3000 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 E2-3000: 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

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while E2-3000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌3313.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 15W.

E2-3000

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 512W, a 497W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (990 vs 1,005).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1019Y can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1019Y better than E2-3000?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, E2-3000 is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1019Y pulls ahead with 1.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1019Y is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1019Y still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 1019Y comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 1019Y makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 E2-3000 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.

E2-3000

The E2-3000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.65 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 990 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1019Y and E2-3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the Celeron 1019Y versus 1.65 GHz on the E2-3000 — a 49.1% clock advantage for the E2-3000. The Celeron 1019Y uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-3000 uses Kabini (2013−2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1019Y scores 1,005 against the E2-3000's 990 — a 1.5% lead for the Celeron 1019Y. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1019Y vs 0 kB on the E2-3000.

Feature	Celeron 1019Y	E2-3000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	1.65 GHz+65%
Base Clock	1 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1024 kB+100%
Process	22 nm-21%	28 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,005+2%	990

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1019Y uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E2-3000 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 1019Y	E2-3000
Socket	BGA1023	FT3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
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 (E2-3000). The Celeron 1019Y includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the E2-3000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1019Y targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 1019Y rivals Pentium 2117U.