Celeron 220 vs Sempron 2600+

Celeron 220 vs Sempron 2600+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 220

1 / 1

320

+10.0%

291

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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 Sempron 2600+ 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 Sempron 2600+: 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

✅Better for gaming: +14.3% higher average FPS across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Sempron 2600+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌725.8% higher power demand at 512W vs 62W.

Sempron 2600+

2001

Why buy it

✅Draws 62W instead of 512W, a 450W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 220 across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (291 vs 320).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 220 better than Sempron 2600+?

Yes. Celeron 220 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 42 shared CPU game tests in our data, 10% 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, Celeron 220 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.3% more average FPS across 42 shared CPU game tests.

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 10% 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 at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 42 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2001) 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 Sempron 2600+ 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.

Sempron 2600+

The Sempron 2600+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the Palermo (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.83 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 62 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 291 points. Launch price was $60.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 220 and Sempron 2600+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 versus 1.83 GHz on the Sempron 2600+ — a 41.6% clock advantage for the Sempron 2600+. The Celeron 220 uses the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture (65 nm), while the Sempron 2600+ uses Palermo (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 220 scores 320 against the Sempron 2600+'s 291 — a 9.5% lead for the Celeron 220. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 220	Sempron 2600+
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	1.83 GHz+53%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Conroe (2006−2007)	Palermo (2001−2005)
PassMark	320+10%	291

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 220 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Sempron 2600+ uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 220	Sempron 2600+
Socket	BGA479	754
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 (Sempron 2600+). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.