Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 152

Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 152 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N2808

2 / 2

615

0.0%

620

+0.8%

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 N2808 vs Opteron 152 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 N2808 vs Opteron 152: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2808

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 104W, a 100W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Opteron 152 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 152 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (615 vs 620).

Opteron 152

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌2500% higher power demand at 104W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2808 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 152 better than Celeron N2808?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 152 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron N2808 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Opteron 152 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.6% 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, Opteron 152 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Opteron 152 still makes the most sense overall. Opteron 152 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N2808 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 152 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2808

The Celeron N2808 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 1.58 GHz, with boost up to 2.25 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 615 points. Launch price was $69.

Opteron 152

The Opteron 152 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Venus (2004−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 104 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 620 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2808 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Opteron 152 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N2808 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2808 versus 2.6 GHz on the Opteron 152 — a 14.4% clock advantage for the Opteron 152 (base: 1.58 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Celeron N2808 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Opteron 152 uses Venus (2004−2005) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2808 scores 615 against the Opteron 152's 620 — a 0.8% lead for the Opteron 152. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N2808	Opteron 152
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.25 GHz	2.6 GHz+16%
Base Clock	1.58 GHz	2.6 GHz+65%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-76%	90 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Venus (2004−2005)
PassMark	615	620

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2808 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Opteron 152 uses 939 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2808	Opteron 152
Socket	FCBGA1170	939
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron N2808) / not specified (Opteron 152). The Celeron N2808 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Opteron 152 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2808 targets Mobile.