Celeron 2.30 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 2.30 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 2.30 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 2.30

2003

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.3 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Celeron 220

2007

Why buy it

✅Costs $58 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 134.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 3.3 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (320 vs 325).
❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.30 better than Celeron 220?

Yes. Celeron 2.30 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 1.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.30 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 91.7% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2.30 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.30 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron 2.30 comes in 138.1% more expensive on MSRP at $100 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?

Celeron 220 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 2.30 vs Celeron 220 Technical Specifications

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

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.

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 2.30 and Celeron 220 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the Celeron 2.30 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 — a 62.9% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.30. The Celeron 2.30 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 220 uses Conroe (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.30 scores 325 against the Celeron 220's 320 — a 1.6% lead for the Celeron 2.30. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.30	Celeron 220
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz+92%	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	325+2%	320

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.30 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 2.30 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 2.30) and 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220).

Feature	Celeron 2.30	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 2.30 targets Budget, Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.30 rivals Pentium 4 2.40; Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.

Feature	Celeron 2.30	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 2.30 was priced at $100, while the Celeron 220 came in at $42. On launch pricing ($100 vs $42), Celeron 220 was $58 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.30 delivers 3.3 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 220 — making the Celeron 220 the 80.4% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2.30	Celeron 220
MSRP	$100	$42-58%
Performance per Dollar	3.3	7.6+130%
Release Date	2003	2007

Search Celeron 2.30 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.