Celeron N2940 vs E-350

Celeron N2940 vs E-350 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N2940

4 / 4

1,054

+0.5%

Core Duo T2050

Celeron N3000

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

1,049

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 N2940 vs E-350 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 N2940 vs E-350: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2940

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 18W, a 11W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while E-350 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

E-350

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,049 vs 1,054).
❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while Celeron N2940 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌157.1% higher power demand at 18W vs 7W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2940 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2940 better than E-350?

Yes. Celeron N2940 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% 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 N2940 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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 N2940 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N2940 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron N2940 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. E-350 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 0.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron N2940 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N2940 vs E-350 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2940

The Celeron N2940 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 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): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,054 points. Launch price was $69.

E-350

The E-350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,049 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2940 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the E-350 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N2940 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2940 versus 1.6 GHz on the E-350 — a 33.8% clock advantage for the Celeron N2940. The Celeron N2940 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the E-350 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2940 scores 1,054 against the E-350's 1,049 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N2940. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N2940	E-350
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.25 GHz+41%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.83 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	22 nm-45%	40 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,054	1,049
Geekbench 6 Single	240	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	850	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2940 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E-350 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2940	E-350
Socket	FCBGA1170	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron N2940) / not specified (E-350). The Celeron N2940 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the E-350 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2940 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N2940 rivals AMD A6-6310.