Celeron 2.20 vs Apple M1 Pro
Primary details
Comparing Apple M1 Pro and Celeron 2.20 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 708 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M-Series | no data |
| Architecture codename | no data | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | 18 October 2021 (3 years ago) | November 2002 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Apple M1 Pro and Celeron 2.20 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 | 10 (Deca-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 10 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.064 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.22 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 2.9 MB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 28 MB | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 33700 Million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M1 Pro and Celeron 2.20 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 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2064 ‑ 3220 Watt | 73 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Apple M1 Pro and Celeron 2.20. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU | 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 | 10 | 1 |
| Threads | 10 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2064 Watt | 73 Watt |
Apple M1 Pro has 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 2.20, on the other hand, has 2727.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Apple M1 Pro and Celeron 2.20. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Apple M1 Pro is a notebook processor while Celeron 2.20 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M1 Pro and Celeron 2.20, 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.
