Celeron 2.60 vs Athlon XP 1600+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon XP 1600+ and Celeron 2.60 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 | Thoroughbred (2001−2002) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | January 2001 (23 years ago) | June 2003 (21 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon XP 1600+ and Celeron 2.60 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 150 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 37 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon XP 1600+ and Celeron 2.60 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 | A | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 63 Watt | 73 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon XP 1600+ and Celeron 2.60. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 63 Watt | 73 Watt |
Athlon XP 1600+ has 15.9% lower power consumption.
Celeron 2.60, on the other hand, has a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon XP 1600+ and Celeron 2.60. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon XP 1600+ and Celeron 2.60, 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.
