Celeron 2.20 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.

Celeron 2.20 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.

Celeron 2.20 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.

Celeron 2.20

2002

Why buy it

✅Draws 73W instead of 512W, a 439W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (305 vs 320).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($79 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Celeron 220

2007

Why buy it

✅+4.9% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $37 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $79 MSRP).
✅Delivers 97.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $79 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 220 better than Celeron 2.20?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.20 is ahead with 83.3% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 220 pulls ahead with 4.9% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 220 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 220 is the better buy right now. Celeron 220 comes in $37 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $79 MSRP, and it still gives you 4.9% better PassMark. The compromise is that Celeron 2.20 is still the better pure gaming CPU with 83.3% higher max boost clock. It is also 97.3% better value on MSRP (7.6 vs 3.9 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 220 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 vs 2002) and 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 2.20 vs Celeron 220 Technical Specifications

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

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.

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

Both the Celeron 2.20 and Celeron 220 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 2.20 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 — a 58.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.20. The Celeron 2.20 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 220 uses Conroe (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.20 scores 305 against the Celeron 220's 320 — a 4.8% lead for the Celeron 220. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.20	Celeron 220
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+83%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	512 kB+300%
Process	130 nm	65 nm-50%
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Conroe (2006−2007)
PassMark	305	320+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.20 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 220 uses BGA479 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Celeron 2.20 versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron 220 — the Celeron 220 supports 66.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. 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 2.20) and 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220).

Feature	Celeron 2.20	Celeron 220
Socket	PGA478	BGA479
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR2-667+67%
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 2.20 targets Budget, Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.20 rivals Pentium 4 2.40; Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.

Feature	Celeron 2.20	Celeron 220
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	No
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 2.20 was priced at $79, while the Celeron 220 came in at $42. On launch pricing ($79 vs $42), Celeron 220 was $37 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.20 delivers 3.9 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 220 — making the Celeron 220 the 65.5% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2.20	Celeron 220
MSRP	$79	$42-47%
Performance per Dollar	3.9	7.6+95%
Release Date	2002	2007

Search Celeron 2.20 on Amazon

Search Celeron 220 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.