Celeron N2805 vs Turion II Neo K685

Celeron N2805 vs Turion II Neo K685 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N2805

2 / 2

1,430

+0.4%

1,424

0.0%

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 N2805 vs Turion II Neo K685 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 N2805 vs Turion II Neo K685: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2805

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Turion II Neo K685 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌300% higher power demand at 4W vs 1W.

Turion II Neo K685

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 4W, a 3W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,424 vs 1,430).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2805 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2805 better than Turion II Neo K685?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion II Neo K685 is ahead with a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2805 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2805 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2805 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2805 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N2805 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010) 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 N2805 vs Turion II Neo K685 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2805

The Celeron N2805 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.46 GHz, with boost up to 1.46 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.3 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,430 points. Launch price was $107.

Turion II Neo K685

The Turion II Neo K685 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g4. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,424 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N2805 and Turion II Neo K685 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.46 GHz on the Celeron N2805 versus 1.8 GHz on the Turion II Neo K685 — a 20.9% clock advantage for the Turion II Neo K685. The Celeron N2805 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion II Neo K685 uses Geneva (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2805 scores 1,430 against the Turion II Neo K685's 1,424 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron N2805.

Feature	Celeron N2805	Turion II Neo K685
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.46 GHz	1.8 GHz+23%
Base Clock	1.46 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Geneva (2010)
PassMark	1,430	1,424

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2805 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion II Neo K685 uses S1g4 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2805	Turion II Neo K685
Socket	FCBGA1170	S1g4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	4	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron N2805) / not specified (Turion II Neo K685). The Celeron N2805 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Turion II Neo K685 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N2805 rivals AMD E1-2100.