Athlon XP 2200+ vs Celeron T3300
Aggregate performance score
Celeron T3300 outperforms Athlon XP 2200+ by a whopping 208% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron T3300 and Athlon XP 2200+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2992 | 3324 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 0.18 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Thorton (2001−2003) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) | January 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $85 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron T3300 and Athlon XP 2200+ 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 | no data | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 80 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 63 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T3300 and Athlon XP 2200+ 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 | PGA478 | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 68 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T3300 and Athlon XP 2200+. 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 |
Security technologies
Celeron T3300 and Athlon XP 2200+ 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 T3300 and Athlon XP 2200+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | 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 | 0.40 | 0.13 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 68 Watt |
Celeron T3300 has a 207.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 94.3% lower power consumption.
The Celeron T3300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon XP 2200+ in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron T3300 is a notebook processor while Athlon XP 2200+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T3300 and Athlon XP 2200+, 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.
