Celeron E1200 vs Athlon II X2 245

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X2 245
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.70
+119%
Celeron E1200
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.32

Athlon II X2 245 outperforms Celeron E1200 by a whopping 119% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27183093
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.89no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.020.47
Architecture codenameRegor (2009−2013)Allendale (2006−2009)
Release date23 July 2009 (15 years ago)January 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$35$40

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.9 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz1.6 GHz
L1 cache256 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB512 KB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size117 mm277 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data73 °C
Number of transistors410 million105 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.5V

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200 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 configuration11
SocketAM3LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200.

PCIe version2.0no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon II X2 245 0.70
+119%
Celeron E1200 0.32

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon II X2 245 1110
+115%
Celeron E1200 516

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Athlon II X2 245 297
+51.5%
Celeron E1200 196

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Athlon II X2 245 515
+50.1%
Celeron E1200 343

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.70 0.32
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm

Athlon II X2 245 has a 118.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Athlon II X2 245 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E1200 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X2 245 and Celeron E1200, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon II X2 245
Athlon II X2 245
Intel Celeron E1200
Celeron E1200

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 325 votes

Rate Athlon II X2 245 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 40 votes

Rate Celeron E1200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II X2 245 or Celeron E1200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.