Athlon II X2 240 vs Celeron N2940
Aggregate performance score
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2738 | 2740 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.28 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.86 | 0.95 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| Release date | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 July 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $35 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.83 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.25 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 117 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 410 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 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 | FCBGA1170 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.32 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 854 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | no data |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | 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
| Recency | 22 May 2014 | 23 July 2009 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron N2940 has an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 828.6% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 240.
Be aware that Celeron N2940 is a notebook processor while Athlon II X2 240 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and Athlon II X2 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.
