CPU
GPU
Athlon 64 2000+
Celeron 220
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 2000+ is positioned at rank 1088 and the Celeron 220 is on rank 1143, so the Athlon 64 2000+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 2000+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 220
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($20) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Conroe (2006−2007) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+117%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($20) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 2000+ and Celeron 220
Athlon 64 2000+
The Athlon 64 2000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 330 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron 220
The Celeron 220 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: BGA479. Thermal design power (TDP): 19 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 320 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 2000+ and Celeron 220 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 — a 18.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 220. The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 220 uses Conroe (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 2000+ scores 330 against the Celeron 220's 320 — a 3.1% lead for the Athlon 64 2000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1 GHz | 1.2 GHz+20% |
| Base Clock | — | 1.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 512 kB |
| Process | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Lima (2008−2009) | Conroe (2006−2007) |
| PassMark | 330+3% | 320 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 220 uses BGA479 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-400 memory speed. The Athlon 64 2000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 1 (Celeron 220). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 0 (Celeron 220) — the Athlon 64 2000+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 2000+) and 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220).
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2 | BGA479 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-400 | DDR2-667 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+300% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 2000+) / No (Celeron 220). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 2000+ launched at $100 MSRP, while the Celeron 220 debuted at $42. At current prices ($20 vs $42), the Athlon 64 2000+ is $22 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 2000+ delivers 16.5 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 220 — making the Athlon 64 2000+ the 73.6% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 220 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $42-58% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-52% | $42 |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.5+117% | 7.6 |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2007 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 2000+ and Celeron 220
