Celeron G1840 vs E2-9000

Celeron G1840 vs E2-9000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron G1840

2 / 2

1,784

0.0%

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

1,787

+0.2%

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 G1840 vs E2-9000 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 G1840 vs E2-9000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G1840

2014

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Haswell), while E2-9000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,784 vs 1,787).
❌Launch MSRP is still $35 MSRP, while E2-9000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌4900% higher power demand at 50W vs 1W.

E2-9000

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 50W, a 49W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1840 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-9000 better than Celeron G1840?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron G1840 is ahead with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E2-9000 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E2-9000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-9000 is still the much better call for a fresh build. E2-9000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $35 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. Celeron G1840 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2014 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (51.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1150.

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

E2-9000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2014) 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 G1840 vs E2-9000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G1840

The Celeron G1840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 May 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 53 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,784 points. Launch price was $53.

E2-9000

The E2-9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,787 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron G1840 and E2-9000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron G1840 versus 2.2 GHz on the E2-9000 — a 24% clock advantage for the Celeron G1840 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Celeron G1840 uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-9000 uses Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1840 scores 1,784 against the E2-9000's 1,787 — a 0.2% lead for the E2-9000.

Feature	Celeron G1840	E2-9000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+27%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+56%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	1 MB+300%
Process	22 nm-21%	28 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
PassMark	1,784	1,787
Geekbench 6 Single	488	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	832	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1840 uses the LGA1150 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E2-9000 uses BGA (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1840	E2-9000
Socket	LGA1150	BGA
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G1840) / not specified (E2-9000). The Celeron G1840 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the E2-9000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1840 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1840 rivals Pentium G3240.