Celeron Dual-Core T1700 vs Celeron N2940

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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 7W, a 6W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2940 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N2940

2014

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron Dual-Core T1700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,054 vs 1,058).
❌600% higher power demand at 7W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

2008

Celeron N2940

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 7W, a 6W reduction.

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron Dual-Core T1700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2940 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,054 vs 1,058).
❌600% higher power demand at 7W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron Dual-Core T1700 better than Celeron N2940?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Celeron N2940 is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T1700 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is the better fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron Dual-Core T1700 still looks like the safer overall buy. Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you 0.4% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N2940 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Benchmark Check

Celeron N2940 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Celeron Dual-Core T1700	Celeron N2940
1080p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS

Open Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Open Celeron N2940

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Celeron Dual-Core T1700	Celeron N2940
1080p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS

Open Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Open Celeron N2940

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Celeron Dual-Core T1700	Celeron N2940
1080p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS

Open Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Open Celeron N2940

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Celeron Dual-Core T1700	Celeron N2940
1080p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	26 FPS
medium	26 FPS	26 FPS
high	26 FPS	26 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	26 FPS

Open Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Open Celeron N2940

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron Dual-Core T1700 and Celeron N2940

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.83 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron N2940

The Celeron N2940 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 2.25 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,054 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N2940 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N2940 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.83 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 versus 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2940 — a 20.6% clock advantage for the Celeron N2940. The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron N2940 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 scores 1,058 against the Celeron N2940's 1,054 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T1700.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1700	Celeron N2940
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.83 GHz	2.25 GHz+23%
Base Clock	—	1.83 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512K (per core)
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,058	1,054
Geekbench 6 Single	—	240
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	850

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N2940 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2940 — the Celeron N2940 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N2940 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) vs 4 (Celeron N2940) — the Celeron N2940 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) and SoC (Celeron N2940).

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1700	Celeron N2940
Socket	PGA478	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3L-1333+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) vs VT-x (Celeron N2940). The Celeron N2940 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1700 targets Budget, Celeron N2940 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1700 rivals Pentium T2390; Celeron N2940 rivals AMD A6-6310.