Celeron 440 vs Xeon 2.66

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 440 vs Xeon 2.66 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 440 vs Xeon 2.66: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 440

2007

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $278 less on MSRP ($59 MSRP vs $337 MSRP).
✅Delivers 505.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 8.0 vs 1.3 PassMark/$ ($59 MSRP vs $337 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 89W, a 54W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon 2.66

2002

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 440 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (445 vs 472).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.3 vs 8.0 PassMark/$ ($337 MSRP vs $59 MSRP).
❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 440 better than Xeon 2.66?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 2.66 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron 440 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 440 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 440 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 440 is the better buy right now. Celeron 440 comes in $278 cheaper on MSRP at $59 MSRP versus $337 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 505.8% better value on MSRP (8.0 vs 1.3 PassMark/$), 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 440 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 vs 2002) 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 440 vs Xeon 2.66 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 440

The Celeron 440 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 472 points. Launch price was $40.

Xeon 2.66

The Xeon 2.66 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Prestonia (2002) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.66 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA604. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 445 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 440 and Xeon 2.66 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron 440 versus 2.66 GHz on the Xeon 2.66 — a 28.3% clock advantage for the Xeon 2.66. The Celeron 440 uses the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Xeon 2.66 uses Prestonia (2002) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 440 scores 472 against the Xeon 2.66's 445 — a 5.9% lead for the Celeron 440. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 440	Xeon 2.66
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.66 GHz+33%
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Conroe-L (2007−2008)	Prestonia (2002)
PassMark	472+6%	445
Geekbench 6 Single	244	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 440 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Xeon 2.66 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 440	Xeon 2.66
Socket	LGA775	PGA604
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 440) / not specified (Xeon 2.66). Primary use case: Celeron 440 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 440 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.

Feature	Celeron 440	Xeon 2.66
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	No	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 440 was priced at $59, while the Xeon 2.66 came in at $337. On launch pricing ($59 vs $337), Celeron 440 was $278 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 440 delivers 8.0 pts/$ vs 1.3 pts/$ for the Xeon 2.66 — making the Celeron 440 the 143.3% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 440	Xeon 2.66
MSRP	$59-82%	$337
Performance per Dollar	8.0+515%	1.3
Release Date	2007	2002

Search Celeron 440 on Amazon

Search Xeon 2.66 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.