Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron B710

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron B710
2011
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.07
Athlon 64 2000+
2008
1 core / 1 thread, 8 Watt
0.10
+42.9%

Athlon 64 2000+ outperforms Celeron B710 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking34043385
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency0.191.18
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Lima (2008−2009)
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+ 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Base clock speed1.6 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz1 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier16no data
L1 cache64K (per core)128 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)512 KB
L3 cache1.5 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size131 mm277 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million122 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+ 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketPGA988,PPGA988AM2
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt8 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+ are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processorsno data
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+ integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

Celeron B710 0.07
Athlon 64 2000+ 0.10
+42.9%

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.

Celeron B710 106
Athlon 64 2000+ 154
+45.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.07 0.10
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 8 Watt

Celeron B710 has a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon 64 2000+, on the other hand, has a 42.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 337.5% lower power consumption.

The Athlon 64 2000+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B710 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron B710 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 2000+ is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B710 and Athlon 64 2000+, 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.


Intel Celeron B710
Celeron B710
AMD Athlon 64 2000+
Athlon 64 2000+

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.


2.8 100 votes

Rate Celeron B710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 13 votes

Rate Athlon 64 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron B710 or Athlon 64 2000+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.