Celeron 220 vs E-240

Celeron 220 vs E-240 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 220

1 / 1

320

0.0%

338

+5.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron 220 vs E-240 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 220 vs E-240: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 220

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (320 vs 338).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while E-240 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

E-240

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is E-240 better than Celeron 220?

Yes. E-240 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 5.6% 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, E-240 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 25% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-240 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

E-240 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. E-240 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you 5.6% 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?

E-240 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2007) 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 220 vs E-240 Technical Specifications

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

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.

E-240

The E-240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 338 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 220 and E-240 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 versus 1.5 GHz on the E-240 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the E-240. The Celeron 220 uses the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture (65 nm), while the E-240 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 220 scores 320 against the E-240's 338 — a 5.5% lead for the E-240. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 220	E-240
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	1.5 GHz+25%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	65 nm	40 nm-38%
Architecture	Conroe (2006−2007)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	320	338+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 220 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E-240 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 220	E-240
Socket	BGA479	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 220) / not specified (E-240). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.