Celeron 2.20 vs M 340
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M 340 outperforms Celeron 2.20 by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3573 | 3636 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.26 | 0.05 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | no data | November 2002 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 340 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 512 KB L2 | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 146 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.356V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 340 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 | PPGA478 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24.5 Watt | 73 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 340 and Celeron 2.20. 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 |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 340 and Celeron 2.20 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 Celeron M 340 and Celeron 2.20 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 340 and Celeron 2.20. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.13 | 0.08 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 73 Watt |
Celeron M 340 has a 62.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 204.2% lower power consumption.
The Intel Celeron M 340 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 2.20 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 340 is a notebook processor while Celeron 2.20 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
