Celeron G1840T vs E2-3000M

Celeron G1840T vs E2-3000M Performance Spectrum

Celeron G1840T

2 / 2

1,576

0.0%

1,597

+1.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

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 G1840T vs E2-3000M 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 G1840T vs E2-3000M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G1840T

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 E2-3000M needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E2-3000M across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,576 vs 1,597).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while E2-3000M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌54.3% higher power demand at 54W vs 35W.

E2-3000M

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 35W instead of 54W, a 19W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1840T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3000M better than Celeron G1840T?

Yes. E2-3000M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, E2-3000M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.4% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E2-3000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-3000M is still the much better call for a fresh build. E2-3000M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron G1840T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2014 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (37.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Celeron G1840T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G1840T vs E2-3000M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G1840T

The Celeron G1840T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,576 points. Launch price was $69.

E2-3000M

The E2-3000M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,597 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron G1840T and E2-3000M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Celeron G1840T versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3000M — a 4.1% clock advantage for the Celeron G1840T (base: 2.5 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Celeron G1840T uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-3000M uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1840T scores 1,576 against the E2-3000M's 1,597 — a 1.3% lead for the E2-3000M. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Celeron G1840T vs 0 kB on the E2-3000M.

Feature	Celeron G1840T	E2-3000M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+4%	2.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+39%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,576	1,597+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1840T uses the LGA1150 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E2-3000M uses FS1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1840T	E2-3000M
Socket	LGA1150	FS1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
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 G1840T) / not specified (E2-3000M). The Celeron G1840T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the E2-3000M requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1840T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1840T rivals Pentium G3240T.