Celeron 2981U vs E-350

Celeron 2981U vs E-350 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2981U

2 / 2

1,036

0.0%

1,049

+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 2981U vs E-350 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 2981U vs E-350: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2981U

2014

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Haswell), while E-350 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,036 vs 1,049).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.6 vs 21.0 PassMark/$ ($137 MSRP vs $50 MSRP).
❌2744.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 18W.

E-350

2011

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $87 less on MSRP ($50 MSRP vs $137 MSRP).
✅Delivers 177.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 21.0 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($50 MSRP vs $137 MSRP).
✅Draws 18W instead of 512W, a 494W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 2981U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E-350 better than Celeron 2981U?

Yes. E-350 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 38 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?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-350 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?

E-350 is the better buy right now. E-350 comes in $87 cheaper on MSRP at $50 MSRP versus $137 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 177.4% better value on MSRP (21.0 vs 7.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 2981U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 2981U vs E-350 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2981U

The Celeron 2981U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,036 points. Launch price was $69.

E-350

The E-350 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 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,049 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2981U and E-350 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 2981U versus 1.6 GHz on the E-350 — identical boost frequencies. The Celeron 2981U uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the E-350 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2981U scores 1,036 against the E-350's 1,049 — a 1.2% lead for the E-350. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 2981U vs 0 kB on the E-350.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	E-350
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512K (per core)
Process	22 nm-45%	40 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,036	1,049+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2981U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E-350 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	E-350
Socket	FCBGA1168	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 2981U) / not specified (E-350). The Celeron 2981U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the E-350 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2981U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2981U rivals Pentium 2117U.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	E-350
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Haswell)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 2981U was priced at $137, while the E-350 came in at $50. On launch pricing ($137 vs $50), E-350 was $87 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2981U delivers 7.6 pts/$ vs 21.0 pts/$ for the E-350 — making the E-350 the 94% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	E-350
MSRP	$137	$50-64%
Performance per Dollar	7.6	21.0+176%
Release Date	2014	2011

Search Celeron 2981U on Amazon

Search E-350 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.