Celeron P4500 vs E2-2000

Celeron P4500 vs E2-2000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron P4500

2 / 2

905

+2.8%

880

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 P4500 vs E2-2000 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 P4500 vs E2-2000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron P4500

2010

Why buy it

✅+2.8% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Westmere), while E2-2000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E2-2000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌94.4% higher power demand at 35W vs 18W.

E2-2000

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 18W instead of 35W, a 17W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (880 vs 905).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron P4500 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-2000 better than Celeron P4500?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, E2-2000 is ahead with a 2.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron P4500 pulls ahead with 2.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron P4500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-2000 is still the much better call for a fresh build. E2-2000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron P4500 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (10.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

E2-2000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron P4500 vs E2-2000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron P4500

The Celeron P4500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 905 points. Launch price was $69.

E2-2000

The E2-2000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.75 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: 880 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron P4500 and E2-2000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 0.07 GHz on the Celeron P4500 versus 1.75 GHz on the E2-2000 — a 184.6% clock advantage for the E2-2000. The Celeron P4500 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the E2-2000 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron P4500 scores 905 against the E2-2000's 880 — a 2.8% lead for the Celeron P4500. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron P4500 vs 0 kB on the E2-2000.

Feature	Celeron P4500	E2-2000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	0.07 GHz	1.75 GHz+2400%
Base Clock	1.86 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm-20%	40 nm
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	905+3%	880

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron P4500 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-2000 uses FT1 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron P4500	E2-2000
Socket	PGA988	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron P4500) / not specified (E2-2000). The Celeron P4500 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Westmere)), while the E2-2000 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron P4500 rivals Pentium P6000.