Celeron 2.0 vs Core 2 Duo E8200

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo E8200 and Celeron 2.0 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2696not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.03no data
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Northwood (2002−2004)
Release dateJanuary 2008 (16 years ago)September 2002 (22 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo E8200 and Celeron 2.0 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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed2.66 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.67 GHz2 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64K (per core)8 KB
L2 cache6 MB (shared)128 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm130 nm
Die size107 mm2146 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 million55 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo E8200 and Celeron 2.0 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775478
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt73 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E8200 and Celeron 2.0. 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 E8200 and Celeron 2.0 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 E8200 and Celeron 2.0 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E8200 and Celeron 2.0. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR1, DDR2

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 45 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 73 Watt

Core 2 Duo E8200 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 12.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Core 2 Duo E8200 and Celeron 2.0. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E8200 and Celeron 2.0, 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 Core 2 Duo E8200
Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Celeron 2.0
Celeron 2.0

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.


3.3 130 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate Celeron 2.0 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo E8200 or Celeron 2.0, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.