Athlon XP 2600+ vs Celeron 220

AMD

Athlon XP 2600+

1 Cores1 Thrd68 WWMax: 1.92 GHz2001
Similar parts
·······
VS
Intel

Celeron 220

1 Cores1 Thrd512 WWMax: 1.2 GHz2007
Similar parts
·······

Athlon XP 2600+ 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 XP 2600+ 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.

Athlon XP 2600+ 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 XP 2600+

2001

Why buy it

  • Draws 68W instead of 512W, a 444W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.5 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($98 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Celeron 220

2007

Why buy it

  • Costs $56 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $98 MSRP).
  • Delivers 119.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 3.5 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $98 MSRP).

Trade-offs

  • Lower PassMark (320 vs 340).
  • 652.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 68W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon XP 2600+ better than Celeron 220?
Yes. Athlon XP 2600+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 6.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.
Which one is better for gaming?
If gaming is the priority, Athlon XP 2600+ has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 60% higher max boost clock.
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon XP 2600+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.3% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Athlon XP 2600+ is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Athlon XP 2600+ comes in 133.3% more expensive on MSRP at $98 MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you 6.3% higher PassMark. Celeron 220 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron 220 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 vs 2001). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon XP 2600+ vs Celeron 220 Technical Specifications

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

AMD

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.

Intel

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 XP 2600+ and Celeron 220 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.92 GHz on the Athlon XP 2600+ versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Athlon XP 2600+. The Athlon XP 2600+ uses the Barton (2001−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 220 uses Conroe (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon XP 2600+ scores 340 against the Celeron 220's 320 — a 6.1% lead for the Athlon XP 2600+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

FeatureAthlon XP 2600+Celeron 220
Cores / Threads
1 / 1
1 / 1
Boost Clock
1.92 GHz+60%
1.2 GHz
Base Clock
1.2 GHz
L3 Cache
0 kB
0 kB
L2 Cache
512K
512 kB
Process
130 nm
65 nm-50%
Architecture
Barton (2001−2004)
Conroe (2006−2007)
PassMark
340+6%
320
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon XP 2600+ uses the A socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 220 uses BGA479 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-333 on the Athlon XP 2600+ versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron 220 — the Celeron 220 supports -300.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD Socket A (Athlon XP 2600+) and 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220).

FeatureAthlon XP 2600+Celeron 220
Socket
A
BGA479
PCIe Generation
PCIe 1.1
PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed
DDR-333
DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity
4 GB
4 GB
RAM Channels
1
1
ECC Support
Yes
No
PCIe Lanes
0
0
🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon XP 2600+) / No (Celeron 220). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.

FeatureAthlon XP 2600+Celeron 220
Integrated GPU
No
No
Unlocked
No
AVX-512
No
Virtualization
No
Target Use
Budget
💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon XP 2600+ was priced at $98, while the Celeron 220 came in at $42. On launch pricing ($98 vs $42), Celeron 220 was $56 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon XP 2600+ delivers 3.5 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 220 — making the Celeron 220 the 74.8% better value option.

FeatureAthlon XP 2600+Celeron 220
MSRP
$98
$42-57%
Performance per Dollar
3.5
7.6+117%
Release Date
2001
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.