Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 250

Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 250 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 250 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 250: 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 250 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 250 across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (615 vs 620).

Opteron 250

2004

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌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 Opteron 250 better than Celeron N2808?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 250 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 250 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% more average FPS across 46 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 250 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 250 still makes the most sense overall. Opteron 250 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 46 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 2004). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N2808 vs Opteron 250 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 250

The Opteron 250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Dezembro 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 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: 620 points. Launch price was $12.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2808 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Opteron 250 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N2808 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2808 versus 2.4 GHz on the Opteron 250 — a 6.5% clock advantage for the Opteron 250. The Celeron N2808 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Opteron 250 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2808 scores 615 against the Opteron 250's 620 — a 0.8% lead for the Opteron 250. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N2808	Opteron 250
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.25 GHz	2.4 GHz+7%
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	620

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2808 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Opteron 250 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2808	Opteron 250
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 250). The Celeron N2808 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Opteron 250 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2808 targets Mobile.