E-240 vs Celeron 420
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 420 outperforms E-240 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 420 and E-240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3323 | 3354 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD E-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.41 | 0.63 |
| Architecture codename | Conroe-L (2007−2008) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | June 2007 (17 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $23 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 420 and E-240 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | 77 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 60 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 105 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1V-1.3375V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 420 and E-240 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 | LGA775 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 420 and E-240. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron 420 and E-240 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 420 and E-240 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 420 and E-240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 Single-channel |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
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 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 18 Watt |
Celeron 420 has a 25% higher aggregate performance score.
E-240, on the other hand, has a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.
The Celeron 420 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-240 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron 420 is a desktop processor while E-240 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 420 and E-240, 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.
