Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Celeron G1610

Front view of Intel Celeron G1610
Front view of AMD A4 5300

AMD A4 5300

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron G1610

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1610

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 2 MB vs 0.5 MB 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much more l3 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l3 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 44.69W vs 52.81W More than 15% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 15% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD A4 5300

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 5300

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.4 GHz vs 2.6 GHz More than 30% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.49 GHz vs 2.69 GHz More than 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.4 GHz vs 2.68 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron G1610 vs A4 5300

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated Data courtesy FutureMark

Celeron G1610
1,994
A4 5300
2,042

Sky Diver Data courtesy FutureMark

Celeron G1610
886
A4 5300
1,355

Cloud Gate Data courtesy FutureMark

Celeron G1610
2,187
A4 5300
2,264

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron G1610
3,499
A4 5300
2,755

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron G1610
1,970
A4 5300
1,802

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron G1610
136,000 MB/s
A4 5300
2,030,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Celeron G1610
2,498
A4 5300
1,999

PassMark (Single Core)

Celeron G1610
1,397
A4 5300
1,252

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Celeron G1610  vs
A4 5300 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 3.4 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

features
Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
SSE3
SSE
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption
TDP 55W 65W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 1.96 pt/W 7.32 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 52.81W

details

 Celeron G1610  vs
A4 5300 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 2 MB 0.5 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking
Overclock popularity 6 5
Overclocked clock speed 2.69 GHz 4.49 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.68 GHz 3.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.69 GHz 4.49 GHz

integrated graphics
GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon™ HD 7480D
GPU clock speed 650 MHz 723 MHz

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
AMD A4 5300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 4 comments.
cubases (02:43 PM, February 9, 2015)
Actually,nothing better than Intel's 2500 graphics..just advertising trick from AMD.. I had this a4-5300 few months ago..Now I bought Celeron 1610 and it's 100 times faster...escpecially in singlethreaded apps. Graphics are absolutely on the same level of performance as a4..
Сергей (12:04 AM, March 13, 2014)
iGPU? who cares about iGPU really? the iGPU in Intel processors are enough for basic needs and old games, and if you wanna play games seriously you'll need to buy dedicated videocard. If the iGPU gets old in your processor what are you gonna do? change a processor for that? that seems kind of a waste to me. Also, even being clocked higher doesn't help this processor. Look at benchmark results- even the worst and cheapest Intel processor has a better perfomance per core than AMD does. Sure this isn't the best AMD CPU, but Celeron is just crap compared to i3, i5, i7. Even Pentium is a decent processor compared to it
guestington (11:56 PM, March 12, 2014)
What, that this is poor comparison? The AMD has a much faster iGPU, and is clocked a lot higher, it's pretty obvious that it would have higher energy usage.
Сергей (10:51 PM, March 12, 2014)
worst and least energy efficient Intel processors are faster and more energy efficient than AMD processors. That indicates something don't you think?
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss