Celeron 2.40 vs Opteron 142
Aggregate performance score
Opteron 142 outperforms Celeron 2.40 by a whopping 100% 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 | 3590 | 3717 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | September 2003 (22 years ago) | March 2003 (23 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 142 and Celeron 2.40 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 | 1.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 142 and Celeron 2.40 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 | 940 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 73 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 142 and Celeron 2.40. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.16 | 0.08 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 73 Watt |
Opteron 142 has a 100% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron 2.40, on the other hand, has 16% lower power consumption.
The AMD Opteron 142 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 2.40 in performance tests.
Be aware that Opteron 142 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 2.40 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.
