Celeron N2840 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-52

Celeron N2840 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-52 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N2840

2 / 2

1,331

+0.5%

1,324

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 N2840 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-52 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 N2840 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-52: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2840

2014

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Turion 64 X2 TL-52 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌600% higher power demand at 7W vs 1W.

Turion 64 X2 TL-52

2006

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 7W, a 6W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,324 vs 1,331).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2840 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2840 better than Turion 64 X2 TL-52?

Yes. Celeron N2840 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron N2840 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, Celeron N2840 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2840 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2840 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N2840 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N2840 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-52 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Turion 64 X2 TL-52

The Turion 64 X2 TL-52 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Trinidad (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,324 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N2840 and Turion 64 X2 TL-52 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.58 GHz on the Celeron N2840 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 X2 TL-52 — a 46.9% clock advantage for the Celeron N2840. The Celeron N2840 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-52 uses Trinidad (2006−2007) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2840 scores 1,331 against the Turion 64 X2 TL-52's 1,324 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N2840.

Feature	Celeron N2840	Turion 64 X2 TL-52
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.58 GHz+61%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.16 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-76%	90 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Trinidad (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,331	1,324
Geekbench 6 Single	230	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	430	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron N2840) / not specified (Turion 64 X2 TL-52). The Celeron N2840 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-52 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2840 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N2840 rivals AMD A6-6310.