Celeron N2810 vs Athlon II Neo K125
Celeron N2810
Athlon II Neo K125
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron N2810 is positioned at rank 605 and the Athlon II Neo K125 is on rank 982, so the Celeron N2810 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2810
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II Neo K125
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron N2810 | Athlon II Neo K125 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Geneva (2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron N2810 | Athlon II Neo K125 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron N2810 and Athlon II Neo K125
Celeron N2810
The Celeron N2810 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 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,474 points. Launch price was $260.
Athlon II Neo K125
The Athlon II Neo K125 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,491 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Celeron N2810 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon II Neo K125 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N2810 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron N2810 versus 1.7 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K125 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N2810. The Celeron N2810 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Athlon II Neo K125 uses Geneva (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2810 scores 1,474 against the Athlon II Neo K125's 1,491 — a 1.1% lead for the Athlon II Neo K125.
| Feature | Celeron N2810 | Athlon II Neo K125 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2+100% | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz+18% | 1.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | — |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 22 nm-51% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Geneva (2010) |
| PassMark | 1,474 | 1,491+1% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron N2810 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon II Neo K125 uses S1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1066 on the Celeron N2810 versus DDR3-800 on the Athlon II Neo K125 — the Celeron N2810 supports 198.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N2810 supports up to 8 of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N2810) vs 0 (Athlon II Neo K125) — the Celeron N2810 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2810) and AMD ASB2 (Athlon II Neo K125).
| Feature | Celeron N2810 | Athlon II Neo K125 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | S1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 1066+35433% | DDR3-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 | 4 GB+52428700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 4 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: true (Celeron N2810) / not specified (Athlon II Neo K125). The Celeron N2810 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon II Neo K125 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N2810 rivals AMD A4-1250.
| Feature | Celeron N2810 | Athlon II Neo K125 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | true | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron N2810 and Athlon II Neo K125
