Celeron 2.40 vs Athlon 64 FX-70
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 FX-70 and Celeron 2.40 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2007) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | November 2006 (18 years ago) | March 2003 (21 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 FX-70 and Celeron 2.40 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 235 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 227 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 FX-70 and Celeron 2.40 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | F | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 73 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 FX-70 and Celeron 2.40. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 73 Watt |
Athlon 64 FX-70 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 2.40, on the other hand, has 71.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 FX-70 and Celeron 2.40. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-70 and Celeron 2.40, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
