Celeron N4000C vs E1-2100

Celeron N4000C vs E1-2100 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N4000C

2 / 2

1,430

0.0%

1,435

+0.3%

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 N4000C vs E1-2100 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 N4000C vs E1-2100: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N4000C

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 9W, a 3W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,430 vs 1,435).

E1-2100

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌50% higher power demand at 9W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4000C better than E1-2100?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N4000C is ahead with a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E1-2100 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E1-2100 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N4000C still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N4000C comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N4000C makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N4000C vs E1-2100 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N4000C

The Celeron N4000C is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4/LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s. Passmark benchmark score: 1,430 points. Launch price was $69.

E1-2100

The E1-2100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,435 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N4000C and E1-2100 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron N4000C versus 1 GHz on the E1-2100 — a 88.9% clock advantage for the Celeron N4000C. The E1-2100 is built on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron N4000C scores 1,430 against the E1-2100's 1,435 — a 0.3% lead for the E1-2100. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron N4000C vs 0 kB on the E1-2100.

Feature	Celeron N4000C	E1-2100
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+160%	1 GHz
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	—
L3 Cache	4 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1024 kB
Process	14 nm-50%	28 nm
Architecture	—	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,430	1,435

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N4000C uses the FCBGA1090 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E1-2100 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.