Celeron 2.40 vs E-240

Celeron 2.40 vs E-240 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2.40

1 / 1

345

+2.1%

338

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 2.40 vs E-240 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 2.40 vs E-240: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 73W instead of 512W, a 439W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike E-240.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $69 MSRP, while E-240 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

E-240

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.40 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (338 vs 345).
❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.40 better than E-240?

Yes. Celeron 2.40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.40 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.5% 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, Celeron 2.40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.40 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.40 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $69 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E-240 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 2.40 vs E-240 Technical Specifications

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

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.

E-240

The E-240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 338 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.40 and E-240 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 versus 1.5 GHz on the E-240 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Celeron 2.40 uses the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture (130 nm), while the E-240 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.40 scores 345 against the E-240's 338 — a 2% lead for the Celeron 2.40. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	E-240
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+60%	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	512 kB+300%
Process	130 nm	40 nm-69%
Architecture	NetBurst (2000−2006)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	345+2%	338
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.40 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E-240 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	E-240
Socket	PGA478	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-333	—
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: None (Celeron 2.40) / not specified (E-240). Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.