Celeron 1020E vs Turion II Neo K685

Celeron 1020E vs Turion II Neo K685 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 1020E

2 / 2

1,406

0.0%

Celeron B820

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

Pentium E5700

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

1,424

+1.3%

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 1020E vs Turion II Neo K685 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 1020E vs Turion II Neo K685: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1020E

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 Turion II Neo K685 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion II Neo K685 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,406 vs 1,424).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Turion II Neo K685 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Turion II Neo K685

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1020E can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion II Neo K685 better than Celeron 1020E?

Yes. Turion II Neo K685 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion II Neo K685 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.4% 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, Turion II Neo K685 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Turion II Neo K685 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion II Neo K685 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 1020E only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (16.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on G2.

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

Celeron 1020E makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 1020E vs Turion II Neo K685 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1020E

The Celeron 1020E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: G2. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,406 points. Launch price was $69.

Turion II Neo K685

The Turion II Neo K685 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g4. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,424 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1020E and Turion II Neo K685 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 1020E versus 1.8 GHz on the Turion II Neo K685 — a 20% clock advantage for the Celeron 1020E. The Celeron 1020E uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion II Neo K685 uses Geneva (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1020E scores 1,406 against the Turion II Neo K685's 1,424 — a 1.3% lead for the Turion II Neo K685.

Feature	Celeron 1020E	Turion II Neo K685
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+22%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Geneva (2010)
PassMark	1,406	1,424+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1020E uses the G2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion II Neo K685 uses S1g4 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 1020E	Turion II Neo K685
Socket	G2	S1g4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 1020E) / not specified (Turion II Neo K685). The Celeron 1020E includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Turion II Neo K685 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1020E targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 1020E rivals Pentium 2020M.