Celeron 2.0 vs A110
Primary details
Comparing A110 and Celeron 2.0 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Stealey (2007) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | June 2007 (17 years ago) | September 2002 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A110 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 0.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 66 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 176 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A110 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | Intel BGA 437 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3 Watt | 73 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A110 and Celeron 2.0. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3 Watt | 73 Watt |
A110 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 2333.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between A110 and Celeron 2.0. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that A110 is a notebook processor while Celeron 2.0 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A110 and Celeron 2.0, 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.
