E-240 vs Celeron E3500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3500 and E-240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2795not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.99no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD E-Series
Power efficiency0.86no data
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Zacate (2011−2013)
Release date29 August 2010 (14 years ago)4 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$62no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed2.7 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz1.5 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB
L2 cache1 MB (shared)512 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm40 nm
Die size82 mm275 mm2
Maximum core temperature74 °Cno data
Number of transistors228 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775FT1 BGA 413-Ball
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt18 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 extensionsIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3MMX(+), 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 typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3 Single-channel

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6310

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3500 and E-240.

PCIe version2.0no 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.



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.

Celeron E3500 935
+379%
E-240 195

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.

Celeron E3500 290
+171%
E-240 107

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.

Celeron E3500 443
+299%
E-240 111

Pros & cons summary


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 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.

We couldn't decide between Celeron E3500 and E-240. We've got no test results to judge.

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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron E3500
Celeron E3500
AMD E-240
E-240

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 27 votes

Rate Celeron E3500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 55 votes

Rate E-240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E3500 or E-240, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.