Celeron 1047UE vs Opteron 254

Celeron 1047UE vs Opteron 254 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 1047UE

2 / 2

675

0.0%

690

+2.2%

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 1047UE vs Opteron 254 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 1047UE vs Opteron 254: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1047UE

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 Opteron 254 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (675 vs 690).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Opteron 254 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌456.5% higher power demand at 512W vs 92W.

Opteron 254

2005

Why buy it

✅Draws 92W instead of 512W, a 420W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1047UE can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 254 better than Celeron 1047UE?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 254 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron 1047UE is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Opteron 254 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.2% 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, Opteron 254 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Opteron 254 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Opteron 254 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 1047UE only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 1.2% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron 1047UE makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 1047UE vs Opteron 254 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1047UE

The Celeron 1047UE 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. Max frequency: 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $134.

Opteron 254

The Opteron 254 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Troy (2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 92 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 690 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 1047UE packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Opteron 254 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron 1047UE has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Celeron 1047UE versus 2.8 GHz on the Opteron 254 — a 66.7% clock advantage for the Opteron 254. The Celeron 1047UE uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Opteron 254 uses Troy (2005) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1047UE scores 675 against the Opteron 254's 690 — a 2.2% lead for the Opteron 254. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1047UE vs 0 kB on the Opteron 254.

Feature	Celeron 1047UE	Opteron 254
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	2.8 GHz+100%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-76%	90 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Troy (2005)
PassMark	675	690+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	159	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	293	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1047UE uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Opteron 254 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 1047UE	Opteron 254
Socket	BGA1023	940
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 1047UE) / not specified (Opteron 254). The Celeron 1047UE includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Opteron 254 requires a dedicated GPU.