Celeron 2981U vs E2-3200

Celeron 2981U vs E2-3200 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2981U

2 / 2

1,036

0.0%

1,050

+1.4%

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 E2-3200 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 E2-3200: 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 E2-3200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,036 vs 1,050).
❌Launch MSRP is still $137 MSRP, while E2-3200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.

E2-3200

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3200 better than Celeron 2981U?

Yes. E2-3200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.4% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, E2-3200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.4% more average FPS across 39 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E2-3200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-3200 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. E2-3200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $137 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.4% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 2981U 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 2.4% in the shared gaming data.

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 E2-3200 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.

E2-3200

The E2-3200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,050 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2981U and E2-3200 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 2981U versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3200 — a 40% clock advantage for the E2-3200 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Celeron 2981U uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-3200 uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2981U scores 1,036 against the E2-3200's 1,050 — a 1.3% lead for the E2-3200. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 2981U vs 0 kB on the E2-3200.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	E2-3200
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.4 GHz+50%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.4 GHz+50%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,036	1,050+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2981U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E2-3200 uses FM1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	E2-3200
Socket	FCBGA1168	FM1
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 (E2-3200). The Celeron 2981U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the E2-3200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2981U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2981U rivals Pentium 2117U.