Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 248

Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 248 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N2808

2 / 2

615

+5.1%

585

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 N2808 vs Opteron 248 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 248: 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 89W, a 85W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Opteron 248 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Opteron 248

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (585 vs 615).
❌2125% higher power demand at 89W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2808 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2808 better than Opteron 248?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 248 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, Celeron N2808 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 2.3% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2808 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2808 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2808 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 5.1% higher PassMark.

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 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 248 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 248

The Opteron 248 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Novembro 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 585 points. Launch price was $12.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2808 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Opteron 248 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N2808 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2808 versus 2.2 GHz on the Opteron 248 — a 2.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N2808. The Celeron N2808 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Opteron 248 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2808 scores 615 against the Opteron 248's 585 — a 5% lead for the Celeron N2808. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N2808	Opteron 248
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.25 GHz+2%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.58 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-83%	130 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	615+5%	585

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2808 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Opteron 248 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2808	Opteron 248
Socket	FCBGA1170	940
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 248). The Celeron N2808 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Opteron 248 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2808 targets Mobile.