Celeron 220 vs Athlon 64 2000+
Celeron 220
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 220 is positioned at rank 1143 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 220
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 2000+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 220 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) | ✅ More affordable ($20) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Conroe (2006−2007) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 220 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+117%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($42) | ✅ More affordable ($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 220 and Athlon 64 2000+
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.
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 220 and Athlon 64 2000+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 versus 1 GHz on the Athlon 64 2000+ — a 18.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 220. The Celeron 220 uses the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture (65 nm), while the Athlon 64 2000+ uses Lima (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 220 scores 320 against the Athlon 64 2000+'s 330 — a 3.1% lead for the Athlon 64 2000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron 220 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.2 GHz+20% | 1 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.2 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 512 kB |
| Process | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Conroe (2006−2007) | Lima (2008−2009) |
| PassMark | 320 | 330+3% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 220 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon 64 2000+ uses AM2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-667 memory speed. 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 220) vs 2 (Athlon 64 2000+). PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 220) vs 16 (Athlon 64 2000+) — the Athlon 64 2000+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220) and AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 2000+).
| Feature | Celeron 220 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA479 | AM2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | DDR2-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: No (Celeron 220) / not specified (Athlon 64 2000+). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.
| Feature | Celeron 220 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | No | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 220 launched at $42 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 2000+ debuted at $100. At current prices ($42 vs $20), the Athlon 64 2000+ is $22 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 220 delivers 7.6 pts/$ vs 16.5 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 2000+ — making the Athlon 64 2000+ the 73.6% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 220 | Athlon 64 2000+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $42-58% | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $42 | $20-52% |
| Performance per Dollar | 7.6 | 16.5+117% |
| Release Date | 2007 | 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 220 and Athlon 64 2000+
