Celeron N3000 vs Opteron 254

Celeron N3000 vs Opteron 254 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N3000

2 / 2

705

+2.2%

690

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 N3000 vs Opteron 254 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 N3000 vs Opteron 254: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3000

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 92W, a 90W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Opteron 254 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Opteron 254

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron N3000 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (690 vs 705).
❌4500% higher power demand at 92W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3000 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3000 better than Opteron 254?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 254 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron N3000 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron N3000 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.8% 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 N3000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3000 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2005) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N3000 vs Opteron 254 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3000

The Celeron N3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $107.

Opteron 254

The Opteron 254 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Troy (2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 92 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 690 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3000 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Opteron 254 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N3000 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3000 versus 2.8 GHz on the Opteron 254 — a 29.5% clock advantage for the Opteron 254. The Celeron N3000 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Opteron 254 uses Troy (2005) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3000 scores 705 against the Opteron 254's 690 — a 2.2% lead for the Celeron N3000. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N3000	Opteron 254
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.08 GHz	2.8 GHz+35%
Base Clock	1.04 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	14 nm-84%	90 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Troy (2005)
PassMark	705+2%	690
Geekbench 6 Single	160	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	290	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3000 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Opteron 254 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N3000	Opteron 254
Socket	FCBGA1170	940
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron N3000) / not specified (Opteron 254). The Celeron N3000 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Opteron 254 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3000 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3000 rivals AMD E2-7110.