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.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700 vs Celeron N2940 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 Dual-Core T1700 vs Celeron N2940: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

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.

Quick Answers

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

It depends on what you want from the system. 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 stronger 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 makes the most sense overall. Celeron Dual-Core T1700 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark.

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

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

Celeron Dual-Core T1700 vs Celeron N2940 Technical Specifications

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

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	512K (per core)+51100%
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 99.9% 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 — 100% 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+100%
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.