Atom 230 vs Celeron 220
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 220 outperforms Atom 230 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 220 and Atom 230 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3343 | 3376 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 0.65 | 2.60 |
| Architecture codename | Conroe (2006−2007) | Silverthorne (2008−2010) |
| Release date | October 2007 (17 years ago) | 2 April 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $29 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 220 and Atom 230 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 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 0.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | FSB |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 533.33 MT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 12 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 56 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 77 mm2 | 25.9638 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 105 million | 47 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1V-1.3375V | 0.9V-1.1625V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 220 and Atom 230 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 | PBGA479 | PBGA437 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 4 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 220 and Atom 230. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | + | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| FSB parity | - | - |
Security technologies
Celeron 220 and Atom 230 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 220 and Atom 230 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | - |
| VT-x | - | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 220 and Atom 230. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
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.
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
| Performance score | 0.13 | 0.11 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 4 Watt |
Celeron 220 has a 18.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Atom 230, on the other hand, has 100% more threads, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 375% lower power consumption.
The Celeron 220 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom 230 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 220 and Atom 230, 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.
