Celeron E1600 vs E2-2000

Celeron E1600 vs E2-2000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron E1600

2 / 2

815

0.0%

880

+8.0%

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 E1600 vs E2-2000 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 E1600 vs E2-2000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E1600

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E2-2000 across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (815 vs 880).
❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while E2-2000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌261.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 18W.

E2-2000

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.0% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 18W instead of 65W, a 47W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-2000 better than Celeron E1600?

Yes. E2-2000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 10.0% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data, 8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, E2-2000 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 10.0% 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, E2-2000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-2000 is still the much better call for a fresh build. E2-2000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 10.0% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron E1600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (15.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

E2-2000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron E1600 vs E2-2000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron E1600

The Celeron E1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) 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 (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 815 points. Launch price was $69.

E2-2000

The E2-2000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.75 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: 880 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron E1600 and E2-2000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E1600 versus 1.75 GHz on the E2-2000 — a 31.3% clock advantage for the Celeron E1600. The Celeron E1600 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the E2-2000 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1600 scores 815 against the E2-2000's 880 — a 7.7% lead for the E2-2000. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron E1600	E2-2000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+37%	1.75 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (total)	512K (per core)
Process	65 nm	40 nm-38%
Architecture	Allendale (2006−2009)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	815	880+8%
Geekbench 6 Single	310	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	560	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E1600 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E2-2000 uses FT1 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron E1600	E2-2000
Socket	LGA775	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron E1600) / not specified (E2-2000). Primary use case: Celeron E1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1600 rivals Pentium E2220.