Athlon 64 2000+
Celeron 220
Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 220 Performance Spectrum
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.
Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 220 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 220: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Athlon 64 2000+
2008Why buy it
- ✅+3.1% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 8W instead of 512W, a 504W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.3 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).
Celeron 220
2007Why buy it
- ✅Costs $58 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 130.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 3.3 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (320 vs 330).
- ❌6300% higher power demand at 512W vs 8W.
Quick Answers
So, is Athlon 64 2000+ better than Celeron 220?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 220 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
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. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-400 on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron 220 — the Celeron 220 supports 66.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 2000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% 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+67% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+300% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| 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
At launch, the Athlon 64 2000+ was priced at $100, while the Celeron 220 came in at $42. On launch pricing ($100 vs $42), Celeron 220 was $58 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 2000+ delivers 3.3 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 220 — making the Celeron 220 the 79.1% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 220 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $42-58% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.3 | 7.6+130% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2007 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
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
