Atom E660 vs Celeron 2.10

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.

Atom E660 vs Celeron 2.10 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.

Atom E660 vs Celeron 2.10: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E660

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 73W, a 70W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 600, while Celeron 2.10 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (275 vs 285).

Celeron 2.10

2002

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $49 MSRP, while Atom E660 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2333.3% higher power demand at 73W vs 3W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E660 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.10 better than Atom E660?

Yes. Celeron 2.10 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 3.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.10 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 61.5% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2.10 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.10 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.10 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $49 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 3.6% higher PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom E660 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2002). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom E660 vs Celeron 2.10 Technical Specifications

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

Atom E660

The Atom E660 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Tunnel Creek (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA676. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 275 points. Launch price was $54.

Celeron 2.10

The Celeron 2.10 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 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: 285 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E660 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Celeron 2.10's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Atom E660 versus 2.1 GHz on the Celeron 2.10 — a 47.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.10. The Atom E660 uses the Tunnel Creek (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 2.10 uses Northwood (2002−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E660 scores 275 against the Celeron 2.10's 285 — a 3.6% lead for the Celeron 2.10. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom E660	Celeron 2.10
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz	2.1 GHz+62%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)+300%	128 kB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	Tunnel Creek (2010)	Northwood (2002−2004)
PassMark	275	285+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E660 uses the BGA676 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2.10 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Atom E660 versus DDR1-400 on the Celeron 2.10 — the Atom E660 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2.10 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. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E660) vs 0 (Celeron 2.10) — the Atom E660 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA518 (Atom E660) and 845,850,865 (Celeron 2.10).

Feature	Atom E660	Celeron 2.10
Socket	BGA676	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800+100%	DDR1-400
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	4 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E660) / No (Celeron 2.10). The Atom E660 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 600), while the Celeron 2.10 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2.10 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.10 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.