Celeron 220 vs Core 2 Duo E6850
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron 220 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2691 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Duo (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Conroe (2006−2007) | Conroe (2006−2007) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | October 2007 (17 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron 220 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 77 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 105 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1V-1.3375V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron 220 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 19 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron 220. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron 220 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron 220 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no 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.
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
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 19 Watt |
Core 2 Duo E6850 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron 220, on the other hand, has 242.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Duo E6850 and Celeron 220. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Duo E6850 is a desktop processor while Celeron 220 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6850 and Celeron 220, 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.
