Atom E680 vs Celeron 220

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 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.

Atom E680 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.

Atom E680

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 600, while Celeron 220 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 220

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (320 vs 325).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Atom E680 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌12700% higher power demand at 512W 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 220?

Yes. Atom E680 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 1.6% 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, Atom E680 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 33.3% higher max boost clock.

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 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E680 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Atom E680 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.6% 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?

Atom E680 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2007) 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 220 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 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

The Atom E680 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Celeron 220's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Atom E680 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Atom E680. The Atom E680 uses the Tunnel Creek (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 220 uses Conroe (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E680 scores 325 against the Celeron 220's 320 — a 1.6% lead for the Atom E680. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom E680	Celeron 220
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz+33%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512 kB
Process	45 nm-31%	65 nm
Architecture	Tunnel Creek (2010)	Conroe (2006−2007)
PassMark	325+2%	320

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E680 uses the BGA676 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 220 uses BGA479 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Atom E680 versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron 220 — the Atom E680 supports 19.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 220 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 220) — the Atom E680 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA518 (Atom E680) and 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220).

Feature	Atom E680	Celeron 220
Socket	BGA676	BGA479
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800+20%	DDR2-667
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 220). The Atom E680 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 600), while the Celeron 220 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.