Atom E680 vs Celeron 2.20

CPU

GPU

Atom E680

1 Cores2 Thrd4 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2010

Celeron 2.20

1 Cores1 Thrd73 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2002

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Atom E680

1 / 2

325

+6.6%

305

0.0%

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Atom E680 is positioned at rank 952 and the Celeron 2.20 is on rank 1081, so the Atom E680 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Atom E680

#940

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

1806%

#941

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

1779%

#942

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

1633%

#943

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

1626%

#944

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

1611%

#946

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

1556%

#947

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1492%

#948

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1489%

#949

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1449%

#952

Atom E680

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#954

Core i7-5850EQ

MSRP: $435|Avg: $370

100%

#956

Core i7-4810MQ

MSRP: $378|Avg: $378

99%

#959

Celeron Dual-Core T3500

MSRP: $80|Avg: $15

98%

#960

Celeron 4305UE

MSRP: $107|Avg: $107

98%

#963

Core i7-10510U

MSRP: $409|Avg: N/A

96%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.20

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

80755%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

76306%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

55404%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

16691%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

13221%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

11566%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

6624%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

6538%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

5953%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

5952%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

5886%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

5727%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

5647%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

5624%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

5573%

#1081

Celeron 2.20

MSRP: $79|Avg: $15

100%

#1082

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

MSRP: $328|Avg: $10

93%

#1083

Athlon 64 X2 5200+

MSRP: $420|Avg: $15

93%

#1084

Core i7-975

MSRP: $999|Avg: $50

91%

#1085

Athlon XP 2600+

MSRP: $98|Avg: $10

90%

#1086

Core i7-965

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $40

89%

#1087

Athlon 64 FX-74

MSRP: $499|Avg: $50

86%

#1088

Athlon 64 2000+

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

85%

#1089

Athlon 64 X2 5600+

MSRP: $505|Avg: $15

85%

#1090

Core 2 Extreme QX9770

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $1399

85%

#1091

Athlon 64 X2 5400+

MSRP: $485|Avg: $78

85%

#1092

Celeron 2.30

MSRP: $100|Avg: $10

84%

#1093

Phenom X4 9450e

MSRP: $450|Avg: $430

84%

#1094

Athlon 64 X2 3800+

MSRP: $354|Avg: $20

80%

#1095

Athlon 64 3000+

MSRP: $149|Avg: $10

78%

#1096

Athlon XP 3100+

MSRP: $150|Avg: $20

73%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Generational Difference: This comparison involves processors from different technological eras. The Atom E680 (2010) utilizes 45 nm technology and DDR2, providing a fundamental performance advantage.

Insight	Atom E680	Celeron 2.20
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($15)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Tunnel Creek (2010) / 45 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Northwood (2002−2004) / 130 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Celeron 2.20 (2002) relies on 130 nm technology and DDR1, DDR2, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.

Insight	Atom E680	Celeron 2.20
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($15)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Atom E680 Benchmark Check

Celeron 2.20 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Atom E680 and Celeron 2.20

Atom E680

The Atom E680 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: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA676. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 325 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 2.20

The Celeron 2.20 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: 2.2 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: 305 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E680 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Celeron 2.20's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Atom E680 versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 2.20 — a 31.6% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.20. The Atom E680 uses the Tunnel Creek (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 2.20 uses Northwood (2002−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E680 scores 325 against the Celeron 2.20's 305 — a 6.3% lead for the Atom E680. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom E680	Celeron 2.20
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.2 GHz+38%
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	325+7%	305

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E680 uses the BGA676 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2.20 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Atom E680 versus DDR1-400 on the Celeron 2.20 — the Atom E680 supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2.20 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E680) vs 0 (Celeron 2.20) — the Atom E680 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA518 (Atom E680) and 845,850,865 (Celeron 2.20).

Feature	Atom E680	Celeron 2.20
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	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E680) / No (Celeron 2.20). The Atom E680 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 600), while the Celeron 2.20 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2.20 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.20 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.