Athlon XP 2600+ vs Celeron 2.40

Athlon XP 2600+ vs Celeron 2.40 Performance Spectrum

Athlon XP 2600+

1 / 1

340

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 2.40

1 / 1

345

+1.5%

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 XP 2600+ vs Celeron 2.40 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 XP 2600+ vs Celeron 2.40: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon XP 2600+

2001

Why buy it

✅Draws 68W instead of 73W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.40 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (340 vs 345).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.5 vs 5.0 PassMark/$ ($98 MSRP vs $69 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $29 less on MSRP ($69 MSRP vs $98 MSRP).
✅Delivers 44.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.0 vs 3.5 PassMark/$ ($69 MSRP vs $98 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Athlon XP 2600+.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.40 better than Athlon XP 2600+?

Yes. Celeron 2.40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.40 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.5% 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 2.40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.40 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.40 comes in $29 cheaper on MSRP at $69 MSRP versus $98 MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 44.1% better value on MSRP (5.0 vs 3.5 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 2.40 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2003 vs 2001) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon XP 2600+ vs Celeron 2.40 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon XP 2600+

The Athlon XP 2600+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the Barton (2001−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.92 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: A. Thermal design power (TDP): 68 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 340 points. Launch price was $23.

Celeron 2.40

The Celeron 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon XP 2600+ and Celeron 2.40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.92 GHz on the Athlon XP 2600+ versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Athlon XP 2600+ uses the Barton (2001−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon XP 2600+ scores 340 against the Celeron 2.40's 345 — a 1.5% lead for the Celeron 2.40. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon XP 2600+	Celeron 2.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.92 GHz	2.4 GHz+25%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K+300%	128 kB
Process	130 nm	130 nm
Architecture	Barton (2001−2004)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	340	345+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	150

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon XP 2600+ uses the A socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 2.40 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-333 on the Athlon XP 2600+ versus DDR1-333 on the Celeron 2.40 — the Celeron 2.40 supports -200% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon XP 2600+ supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD Socket A (Athlon XP 2600+) and Intel 845,Intel 865 (Celeron 2.40).

Feature	Athlon XP 2600+	Celeron 2.40
Socket	A	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR-333	DDR1-333
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon XP 2600+) / None (Celeron 2.40). Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Athlon XP 2600+	Celeron 2.40
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	None
Target Use	—	Legacy Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon XP 2600+ was priced at $98, while the Celeron 2.40 came in at $69. On launch pricing ($98 vs $69), Celeron 2.40 was $29 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon XP 2600+ delivers 3.5 pts/$ vs 5.0 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.40 — making the Celeron 2.40 the 36.1% better value option.

Feature	Athlon XP 2600+	Celeron 2.40
MSRP	$98	$69-30%
Performance per Dollar	3.5	5.0+43%
Release Date	2001	2003

Search Athlon XP 2600+ on Amazon

Search Celeron 2.40 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.