CPU
GPU
Celeron 2.40
Atom E680
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 E680 is on rank 952, so the Atom E680 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 E680
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E680 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($13) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (NetBurst (2000−2006) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Tunnel Creek (2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E680 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 E680
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 E680
The Atom E680 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Tunnel Creek (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA676. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 325 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Celeron 2.40 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, matching the Atom E680's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 versus 1.6 GHz on the Atom E680 — a 40% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Celeron 2.40 uses the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom E680 uses Tunnel Creek (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.40 scores 345 against the Atom E680's 325 — a 6% lead for the Celeron 2.40. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E680 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz+50% | 1.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 128 kB | 512 kB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 130 nm | 45 nm-65% |
| Architecture | NetBurst (2000−2006) | Tunnel Creek (2010) |
| PassMark | 345+6% | 325 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 150 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 150 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 2.40 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom E680 uses BGA676 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-333 on the Celeron 2.40 versus DDR2-800 on the Atom E680 — the Atom E680 supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 2 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 2.40) vs 4 (Atom E680) — the Atom E680 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 845,Intel 865 (Celeron 2.40) and Intel FCBGA518 (Atom E680).
| Feature | Celeron 2.40 | Atom E680 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | BGA676 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR1-333 | DDR2-800+100% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: None (Celeron 2.40) / not specified (Atom E680). The Atom E680 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 600), 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 E680 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel GMA 600 |
| 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 E680
