Athlon II X2 220 vs Celeron T3500

Athlon II X2 220 vs Celeron T3500 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X2 220

2 / 2

1,046

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron T3500

1,055

+0.9%

Core Duo T2050

Celeron N3000

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

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 II X2 220 vs Celeron T3500 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.

Athlon II X2 220 vs Celeron T3500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon II X2 220

2010

Why buy it

✅Costs $48 less on MSRP ($32 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
✅Delivers 147.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.7 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($32 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Celeron T3500.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,046 vs 1,055).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Celeron T3500

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.2 vs 32.7 PassMark/$ ($80 MSRP vs $32 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 220.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron T3500 better than Athlon II X2 220?

Yes. Celeron T3500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron T3500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron T3500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron T3500 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron T3500 comes in 150.0% more expensive on MSRP at $80 MSRP versus $32 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II X2 220 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 147.9% better value on paper (32.7 vs 13.2 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron T3500 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Athlon II X2 220 vs Celeron T3500 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon II X2 220

The Athlon II X2 220 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,046 points. Launch price was $32.

Celeron T3500

The Celeron T3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,055 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II X2 220 is built on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 220 scores 1,046 against the Celeron T3500's 1,055 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron T3500. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 220 vs 1 MB on the Celeron T3500.

Feature	Athlon II X2 220	Celeron T3500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz	—
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+33%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB	—
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	Regor (2009−2013)	—
PassMark	1,046	1,055
Geekbench 6 Single	285	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	500	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X2 220 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron T3500 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon II X2 220	Celeron T3500
Socket	AM3	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Athlon II X2 220) / not specified (Celeron T3500). Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 220 rivals Pentium E5500.

Feature	Athlon II X2 220	Celeron T3500
Integrated GPU	No	—
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	true	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II X2 220 was priced at $32, while the Celeron T3500 came in at $80. On launch pricing ($32 vs $80), Athlon II X2 220 was $48 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X2 220 delivers 32.7 pts/$ vs 13.2 pts/$ for the Celeron T3500 — making the Athlon II X2 220 the 85% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II X2 220	Celeron T3500
MSRP	$32-60%	$80
Performance per Dollar	32.7+148%	13.2
Release Date	2010	2010

Search Athlon II X2 220 on Amazon

Search Celeron T3500 on Amazon

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.