E-240 vs Pentium 4 2.40

E-240 vs Pentium 4 2.40 Performance Spectrum

E-240

1 / 1

338

+4.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Pentium 4 2.40

1 / 1

325

0.0%

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.

E-240 vs Pentium 4 2.40 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.

E-240 vs Pentium 4 2.40: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

E-240

2011

Why buy it

✅+4% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌365.5% higher power demand at 512W vs 110W.

Pentium 4 2.40

2004

Why buy it

✅Draws 110W instead of 512W, a 402W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (325 vs 338).
❌Launch MSRP is still $193 MSRP, while E-240 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium 4 2.40 better than E-240?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Pentium 4 2.40 is ahead with 60% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E-240 pulls ahead with 4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-240 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Pentium 4 2.40 is the better buy right now. Pentium 4 2.40 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $193 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 60% higher max boost clock. The compromise is that E-240 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 4% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (1.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E-240 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

E-240 vs Pentium 4 2.40 Technical Specifications

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

E-240

The E-240 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 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 338 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium 4 2.40

The Pentium 4 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 110 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 325 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the E-240 and Pentium 4 2.40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the E-240 versus 2.4 GHz on the Pentium 4 2.40 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Pentium 4 2.40. The E-240 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Pentium 4 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the E-240 scores 338 against the Pentium 4 2.40's 325 — a 3.9% lead for the E-240. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	E-240	Pentium 4 2.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.4 GHz+60%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	40 nm-56%	90 nm
Architecture	Zacate (2011−2013)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	338+4%	325