Celeron G5925 vs E-240
Primary details
Comparing E-240 and Celeron G5925 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2015 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD E-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.86 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | no data |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E-240 and Celeron G5925 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) | no data |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB Intel® Smart Cache |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E-240 and Celeron G5925 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 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | FCLGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 58 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-240 and Celeron G5925. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
E-240 and Celeron G5925 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-240 and Celeron G5925 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-240 and Celeron G5925. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 41.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | Intel UHD Graphics 610 |
| Max video memory | no data | 64 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of E-240 and Celeron G5925 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by E-240 and Celeron G5925 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@30Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by E-240 and Celeron G5925 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E-240 and Celeron G5925.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| 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.
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 | 4 January 2011 | 1 July 2020 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 58 Watt |
E-240 has 222.2% lower power consumption.
Celeron G5925, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, 100% more threads, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between E-240 and Celeron G5925. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that E-240 is a notebook processor while Celeron G5925 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-240 and Celeron G5925, 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.
