Celeron 220 vs E2-3200
Aggregate performance score
E2-3200 outperforms Celeron 220 by a whopping 369% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E2-3200 and Celeron 220 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2785 | 3328 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 0.89 | 0.65 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Conroe (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 7 September 2011 (13 years ago) | October 2007 (17 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E2-3200 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 | 2.4 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 77 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 105 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1V-1.3375V |
Compatibility
Information on E2-3200 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FM1 | PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 19 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3200 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
E2-3200 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 E2-3200 and Celeron 220 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3200 and Celeron 220. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon HD 6370D | 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.
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 | 0.61 | 0.13 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 19 Watt |
E2-3200 has a 369.2% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 220, on the other hand, has 242.1% lower power consumption.
The E2-3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 220 in performance tests.
Note that E2-3200 is a desktop processor while Celeron 220 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3200 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.
