Celeron N2840 vs Celeron G1610T
Celeron N2840
Celeron G1610T
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 N2840 is positioned at rank 157 and the Celeron G1610T is on rank 575, so the Celeron N2840 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2840
Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1610T
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron N2840 | Celeron G1610T |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron N2840 | Celeron G1610T |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) |
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 N2840 and Celeron G1610T
Celeron N2840
The Celeron N2840 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 2.16 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 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: 1,331 points. Launch price was $69.
Celeron G1610T
The Celeron G1610T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,333 points. Launch price was $89.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron N2840 and Celeron G1610T share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.58 GHz on the Celeron N2840 versus 2.3 GHz on the Celeron G1610T — a 11.5% clock advantage for the Celeron N2840 (base: 2.16 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The Celeron N2840 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron G1610T uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2840 scores 1,331 against the Celeron G1610T's 1,333 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron G1610T. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 230 vs 393, a 52.3% lead for the Celeron G1610T that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 430 vs 674 (44.2% advantage for the Celeron G1610T). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N2840 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1610T.
| Feature | Celeron N2840 | Celeron G1610T |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.58 GHz+12% | 2.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.16 GHz | 2.3 GHz+6% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core)+100% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Architecture | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,331 | 1,333 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 230 | 393+71% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 430 | 674+57% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron N2840 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G1610T uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1333 memory speed. The Celeron G1610T supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N2840) vs 16 (Celeron G1610T) — the Celeron G1610T offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Celeron N2840) and H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1610T).
| Feature | Celeron N2840 | Celeron G1610T |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | LGA1155 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3L-1333 | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 32 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 4 | 16+300% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2840) and HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron G1610T) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2840 targets Netbook, Celeron G1610T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron N2840 rivals AMD A6-6310; Celeron G1610T rivals Pentium G2020T.
| Feature | Celeron N2840 | Celeron G1610T |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) | HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | VT-x |
| Target Use | Netbook | Budget |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron N2840 and Celeron G1610T
