Celeron 2.40 vs Atom E3815
Celeron 2.40
Atom E3815
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron 2.40 is positioned at rank 1072 and the Atom E3815 is on rank 1103, so the Celeron 2.40 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.40
Performance Per Dollar Atom E3815
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E3815 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($13) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (NetBurst (2000−2006) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-I (2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E3815 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($13) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 2.40 and Atom E3815
Celeron 2.40
The Celeron 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $69.
Atom E3815
The Atom E3815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 October 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.47 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 365 points. Launch price was $134.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 2.40 and Atom E3815 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 versus 1.47 GHz on the Atom E3815 — a 48.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Celeron 2.40 uses the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom E3815 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.40 scores 345 against the Atom E3815's 365 — a 5.6% lead for the Atom E3815. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E3815 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz+63% | 1.47 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 128 kB | 512 kB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 130 nm | 22 nm-83% |
| Architecture | NetBurst (2000−2006) | Bay Trail-I (2013) |
| PassMark | 345 | 365+6% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 150 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 150 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 2.40 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom E3815 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-333 on the Celeron 2.40 versus DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3815 — the Atom E3815 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom E3815 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 2.40) vs 4 (Atom E3815) — the Atom E3815 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 845,Intel 865 (Celeron 2.40) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3815).
| Feature | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E3815 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR1-333 | DDR3L-1066+200% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 2 GB | 8 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: None (Celeron 2.40) / not specified (Atom E3815). The Atom E3815 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron 2.40 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.
| Feature | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E3815 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | None | — |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 2.40 and Atom E3815
