Atom E680 vs Celeron 2.20

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 E680 vs Celeron 2.20 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 E680 vs Celeron 2.20: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E680

2010

Why buy it

✅+6.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 73W, a 69W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 600, while Celeron 2.20 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 2.20

2002

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (305 vs 325).
❌Launch MSRP is still $79 MSRP, while Atom E680 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1725% higher power demand at 73W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E680 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E680 better than Celeron 2.20?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.20 is ahead with 37.5% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom E680 pulls ahead with 6.6% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom E680 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E680 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom E680 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $79 MSRP, and it still gives you 6.6% better PassMark. Celeron 2.20 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2002 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Atom E680 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2002) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E680 vs Celeron 2.20 Technical Specifications

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

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 100% 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 — 100% 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	No	No
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.