E-240 vs Pentium M 1.40

E-240 vs Pentium M 1.40 Performance Spectrum

E-240

1 / 1

338

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Pentium M 1.40

1 / 1

345

+2.1%

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 M 1.40 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 M 1.40: 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

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Pentium M 1.40 across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (338 vs 345).
❌2033.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 24W.

Pentium M 1.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 24W instead of 512W, a 488W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium M 1.40 better than E-240?

Yes. Pentium M 1.40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Pentium M 1.40 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.5% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 1.40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Pentium M 1.40 still makes the most sense overall. Pentium M 1.40 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

E-240 vs Pentium M 1.40 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 M 1.40

The Pentium M 1.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Banias (2003) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 24 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the E-240 and Pentium M 1.40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the E-240 versus 1.4 GHz on the Pentium M 1.40 — a 6.9% clock advantage for the E-240. The E-240 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Pentium M 1.40 uses Banias (2003) (130 nm). In PassMark, the E-240 scores 338 against the Pentium M 1.40's 345 — a 2% lead for the Pentium M 1.40. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	E-240	Pentium M 1.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz+7%	1.4 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	40 nm-69%	130 nm
Architecture	Zacate (2011−2013)	Banias (2003)
PassMark	338	345+2%