Celeron J1800 vs E2-2000

Celeron J1800 vs E2-2000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J1800

2 / 2

820

0.0%

880

+7.3%

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 J1800 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 J1800 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 J1800

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 18W, a 17W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while E2-2000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E2-2000 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (820 vs 880).

E2-2000

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌1700% higher power demand at 18W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-2000 better than Celeron J1800?

Yes. E2-2000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 11.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 7.3% 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 11.7% 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, E2-2000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 7.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-2000 still makes the most sense overall. E2-2000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 11.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

E2-2000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 J1800 vs E2-2000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J1800

The Celeron J1800 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 820 points. Launch price was $72.

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 J1800 and E2-2000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.58 GHz on the Celeron J1800 versus 1.75 GHz on the E2-2000 — a 38.3% clock advantage for the Celeron J1800. The Celeron J1800 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-2000 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1800 scores 820 against the E2-2000's 880 — a 7.1% lead for the E2-2000. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1800 vs 0 kB on the E2-2000.

Feature	Celeron J1800	E2-2000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.58 GHz+47%	1.75 GHz
Base Clock	2.41 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	22 nm-45%	40 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	820	880+7%
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1800 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-2000 uses FT1 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J1800	E2-2000
Socket	FCBGA1170	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J1800) / not specified (E2-2000). The Celeron J1800 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the E2-2000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1800 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1800 rivals Pentium J2850.