Celeron 2.10 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.

Celeron 2.10 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.

Celeron 2.10 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.

Celeron 2.10

2002

Why buy it

✅Costs $30 less on MSRP ($49 MSRP vs $79 MSRP).
✅Delivers 50.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.8 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($49 MSRP vs $79 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.20 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (285 vs 305).

Celeron 2.20

2002

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 5.8 PassMark/$ ($79 MSRP vs $49 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.20 better than Celeron 2.10?

Yes. Celeron 2.20 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 7% 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, Celeron 2.20 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2.20 is the stronger fit. You are getting 7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.20 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron 2.20 comes in 61.2% more expensive on MSRP at $79 MSRP versus $49 MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 2.10 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2002 platform. Even with 50.7% better value on paper (5.8 vs 3.9 PassMark/$), 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?

Celeron 2.20 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 2.10 vs Celeron 2.20 Technical Specifications

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

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.

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

Both the Celeron 2.10 and Celeron 2.20 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.1 GHz on the Celeron 2.10 versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 2.20 — a 4.7% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.20. Both are built on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture using a 130 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron 2.10 scores 285 against the Celeron 2.20's 305 — a 6.8% lead for the Celeron 2.20. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.10	Celeron 2.20
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.1 GHz	2.2 GHz+5%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	128 kB
Process	130 nm	130 nm
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Northwood (2002−2004)
PassMark	285	305+7%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA478 socket with PCIe 1.1. Both support up to DDR1-400 memory speed. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 845,850,865 (Celeron 2.10) and 845,850,865 (Celeron 2.20).

Feature	Celeron 2.10	Celeron 2.20
Socket	PGA478	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR1-400
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support No virtualization. Primary use case: Celeron 2.10 targets Budget, Celeron 2.20 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.10 rivals Pentium 4 2.40; Celeron 2.20 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Celeron 2.10	Celeron 2.20
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	No
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 2.10 was priced at $49, while the Celeron 2.20 came in at $79. On launch pricing ($49 vs $79), Celeron 2.10 was $30 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.10 delivers 5.8 pts/$ vs 3.9 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.20 — making the Celeron 2.10 the 40.4% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2.10	Celeron 2.20
MSRP	$49-38%	$79
Performance per Dollar	5.8+49%	3.9
Release Date	2002	2002

Search Celeron 2.10 on Amazon

Search Celeron 2.20 on Amazon

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.