Athlon 300U vs Celeron 2.0
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1753 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.38 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Raven Ridge 2 (2019) |
| Release date | September 2002 (22 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 478 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 15 Watt |
Athlon 300U has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 386.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.0 is a desktop processor while Athlon 300U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.0 and Athlon 300U, 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.
