CPU
GPU
Celeron G1610T
Celeron N2840
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron G1610T is positioned at rank 575 and the Celeron N2840 is on rank 157, so the Celeron N2840 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1610T
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2840
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron G1610T | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron G1610T | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron G1610T and Celeron N2840
Celeron G1610T
The Celeron G1610T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,333 points. Launch price was $89.
Celeron N2840
The Celeron N2840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.16 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 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: 1,331 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron G1610T and Celeron N2840 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the Celeron G1610T versus 2.58 GHz on the Celeron N2840 — a 11.5% clock advantage for the Celeron N2840 (base: 2.3 GHz vs 2.16 GHz). The Celeron G1610T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N2840 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1610T scores 1,333 against the Celeron N2840's 1,331 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron G1610T. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 393 vs 230, a 52.3% lead for the Celeron G1610T that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 674 vs 430 (44.2% advantage for the Celeron G1610T). L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1610T vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2840.
| Feature | Celeron G1610T | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.3 GHz | 2.58 GHz+12% |
| Base Clock | 2.3 GHz+6% | 2.16 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256 kB (per core) | 512K (per core)+100% |
| Process | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 1,333 | 1,331 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 393+71% | 230 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 674+57% | 430 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron G1610T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2840 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Celeron G1610T supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron G1610T) vs 4 (Celeron N2840) — the Celeron G1610T offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1610T) and SoC (Celeron N2840).
| Feature | Celeron G1610T | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1155 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | DDR3L-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB+300% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+300% | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron G1610T) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2840) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1610T targets Budget, Celeron N2840 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron G1610T rivals Pentium G2020T; Celeron N2840 rivals AMD A6-6310.
| Feature | Celeron G1610T | Celeron N2840 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | VT-x |
| Target Use | Budget | Netbook |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron G1610T and Celeron N2840
