Celeron 2.30 vs Athlon 64 2000+
Celeron 2.30
Athlon 64 2000+
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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 Celeron 2.30 is positioned at rank 1092 and the Athlon 64 2000+ is on rank 1088, so the Athlon 64 2000+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.30
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 2000+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 2.30 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Northwood (2002−2004) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 2.30 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+97%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) |
Performance Check
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 2.30 and Athlon 64 2000+
Celeron 2.30
The Celeron 2.30 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: 2.3 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: 325 points. Launch price was $69.
Athlon 64 2000+
The Athlon 64 2000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 330 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 2.30 and Athlon 64 2000+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the Celeron 2.30 versus 1 GHz on the Athlon 64 2000+ — a 78.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.30. The Celeron 2.30 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Athlon 64 2000+ uses Lima (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.30 scores 325 against the Athlon 64 2000+'s 330 — a 1.5% lead for the Athlon 64 2000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron 2.30 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2.3 GHz+130% | 1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 128 kB | 512 kB+300% |
| Process | 130 nm | 65 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Northwood (2002−2004) | Lima (2008−2009) |
| PassMark | 325 | 330+2% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 2.30 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon 64 2000+ uses AM2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Celeron 2.30 versus DDR2-400 on the Athlon 64 2000+ — the Athlon 64 2000+ supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 2000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Celeron 2.30) vs 2 (Athlon 64 2000+). PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 2.30) vs 16 (Athlon 64 2000+) — the Athlon 64 2000+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: 845,850,865 (Celeron 2.30) and AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 2000+).
| Feature | Celeron 2.30 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | AM2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR1-400 | DDR2-400+100% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: No (Celeron 2.30) / not specified (Athlon 64 2000+). Primary use case: Celeron 2.30 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.30 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.
| Feature | Celeron 2.30 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | No | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 2.30 launched at $100 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 2000+ debuted at $100. At current prices ($10 vs $20), the Celeron 2.30 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.30 delivers 32.5 pts/$ vs 16.5 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 2000+ — making the Celeron 2.30 the 65.3% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 2.30 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-50% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 32.5+97% | 16.5 |
| Release Date | 2003 | 2008 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 2.30 and Athlon 64 2000+
