i9-14900KS vs Celeron 2.40
Aggregate performance score
Core i9-14900KS outperforms Celeron 2.40 by a whopping 43522% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3376 | 69 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 8 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.12 | 24.77 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Raptor Lake-R (2023−2024) |
| Release date | March 2003 (21 year ago) | March 2024 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $689 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 5.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 478 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 150 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 89.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 770 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.65 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 32 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.09 | 39.26 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 24 |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 150 Watt |
Celeron 2.40 has 105.5% lower power consumption.
i9-14900KS, on the other hand, has a 43522.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 2300% more physical cores and 3100% more threads.
The Core i9-14900KS is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2.40 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.40 and Core i9-14900KS, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
