E-240 vs Celeron E3500
Aggregate performance score
Celeron E3500 outperforms E-240 by a whopping 392% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron E3500 and E-240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2801 | 3339 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.99 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD E-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.86 | 0.63 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 29 August 2010 (14 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $62 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3500 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3500 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) | 65 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3500 and E-240. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 | 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 | + | - |
Security technologies
Celeron E3500 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 E3500 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 E3500 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 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3500 and E-240.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.59 | 0.12 |
| Recency | 29 August 2010 | 4 January 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 18 Watt |
Celeron E3500 has a 391.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
E-240, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 261.1% lower power consumption.
The Celeron E3500 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-240 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron E3500 is a desktop processor while E-240 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3500 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.
