Celeron B840 vs E2-9000

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-9000
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.60
Celeron B840
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.60

Primary details

Comparing E2-9000 and Celeron B840 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28172818
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.721.63
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)1 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

E2-9000 and Celeron B840 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.8 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.9 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data19
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size124.5 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1200 Million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-9000 and Celeron B840 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketBGAG2 (988B)
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-9000 and Celeron B840. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,no data
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

E2-9000 and Celeron B840 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-9000 and Celeron B840 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-9000 and Celeron B840. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 600 MHz)Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (650 - 950 MHz)

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.

E2-9000 0.60
Celeron B840 0.60

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.

E2-9000 967
Celeron B840 967

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Integrated graphics card 1.04 0.34
Recency 1 June 2016 1 July 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 35 Watt

E2-9000 has 205.9% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between E2-9000 and Celeron B840.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-9000 and Celeron B840, 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.


AMD E2-9000
E2-9000
Intel Celeron B840
Celeron B840

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


2.5 324 votes

Rate E2-9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.9 17 votes

Rate Celeron B840 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-9000 or Celeron B840, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.