Celeron N2940 vs E2-3200

Celeron N2940 vs E2-3200 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N2940

4 / 4

1,054

+0.4%

Core Duo T2050

Celeron N3000

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

1,050

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 E2-3200 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 E2-3200: 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

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 7W instead of 65W, a 58W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while E2-3200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

E2-3200

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,050 vs 1,054).
❌828.6% higher power demand at 65W 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 E2-3200?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, E2-3200 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2940 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N2940 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2940 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark.

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 E2-3200 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.

E2-3200

The E2-3200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,050 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2940 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the E2-3200 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N2940 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2940 versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3200 — a 6.5% clock advantage for the E2-3200 (base: 1.83 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Celeron N2940 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-3200 uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2940 scores 1,054 against the E2-3200's 1,050 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron N2940. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N2940	E2-3200
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.25 GHz	2.4 GHz+7%
Base Clock	1.83 GHz	2.4 GHz+31%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,054	1,050
Geekbench 6 Single	240	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	850	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2940 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-3200 uses FM1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2940	E2-3200
Socket	FCBGA1170	FM1
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 (E2-3200). The Celeron N2940 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the E2-3200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2940 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N2940 rivals AMD A6-6310.