Opteron 142 vs Celeron 2.80
Opteron 142
Celeron 2.80
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 Opteron 142 is positioned at rank 1025 and the Celeron 2.80 is on rank 1076, so the Opteron 142 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Opteron 142
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.80
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Opteron 142 | Celeron 2.80 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (SledgeHammer (2003−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Northwood (2002−2004) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Opteron 142 | Celeron 2.80 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+28%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
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 Opteron 142 and Celeron 2.80
Opteron 142
The Opteron 142 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 445 points. Launch price was $800.
Celeron 2.80
The Celeron 2.80 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: 2.8 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: 428 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Opteron 142 and Celeron 2.80 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Opteron 142 versus 2.8 GHz on the Celeron 2.80 — a 54.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.80. The Opteron 142 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 2.80 uses Northwood (2002−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Opteron 142 scores 445 against the Celeron 2.80's 428 — a 3.9% lead for the Opteron 142. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Celeron 2.80 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 2.8 GHz+75% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+700% | 128 kB |
| Process | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Architecture | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| PassMark | 445+4% | 428 |
Memory & Platform
The Opteron 142 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2.80 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-333 on the Opteron 142 versus DDR1-400 on the Celeron 2.80 — the Celeron 2.80 supports -201.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Opteron 142 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Opteron 142) vs 1 (Celeron 2.80). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Celeron 2.80 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 940 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-333 | DDR1-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Opteron 142) vs No (Celeron 2.80). Primary use case: Opteron 142 targets Server, Celeron 2.80 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.80 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Celeron 2.80 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | No |
| Target Use | Server | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Opteron 142 launched at $292 MSRP, while the Celeron 2.80 debuted at $100. At current prices ($20 vs $15), the Celeron 2.80 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Opteron 142 delivers 22.3 pts/$ vs 28.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.80 — making the Celeron 2.80 the 24.7% better value option.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Celeron 2.80 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $292 | $100-66% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $15-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.3 | 28.5+28% |
| Release Date | 2003 | 2003 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Opteron 142 and Celeron 2.80
