i3-12100F vs Celeron 2.0
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 858 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 5 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.49 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Alder Lake-S (2022) |
| Release date | September 2002 (22 years ago) | January 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 163 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F 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 | 478 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 58 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 58 Watt |
i3-12100F has 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and 25.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.0 and Core i3-12100F, 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.
