Intel Celeron G1610 vs AMD A4 5300

older Released January, 2013

Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron G1610

	Much more l3 cache 2 MB		Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm
	Much more l3 cache per core 1 MB/core		Lower typical power consumption 44.69W

older Released October, 2012

Reasons to buy the AMD A4 5300

	Much higher clock speed 3.4 GHz		Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.49 GHz
	Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.4 GHz

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

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1610

Report a correction

Much more l3 cache

2 MB

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

32 nm

A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor

Much more l3 cache per core

1 MB/core

0.25 MB/core

4x more l3 cache per core

Lower typical power consumption

44.69W

52.81W

More than 15% lower typical power consumption

Lower annual home energy cost

13.25 $/year

15.66 $/year

More than 15% lower annual home energy cost

Lower annual commercial energy cost

48.18 $/year

56.94 $/year

More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 5300

Report a correction

Much higher clock speed

3.4 GHz

2.6 GHz

More than 30% higher clock speed

Much better overclocked clock speed (Air)

4.49 GHz

2.69 GHz

More than 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air)

Much better overclocked clock speed (Water)

3.4 GHz

2.68 GHz

More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

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

summary	Celeron G1610	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	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

Desktops

Looking for a desktop?

1 desktop with the Intel Celeron G1610, starting from $83
1 desktop with the AMD A4 5300, starting from $196

Compare

Popular Comparisons

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?

	VS
$50		$125
5300 vs 3220

	VS
$50		$179
5300 vs E8400

	VS
$50		$50
5300 vs 5400K

	VS
$42		$125
G1610 vs 3220

	VS
$42		$75
G1610 vs G2020

	VS
$42		$76
G1610 vs G2030

	VS
$42		$179
G1610 vs E8400

	VS
$305		$300
W3520 vs 2500

	VS
$272		$350
4790K vs 6700K

	VS
$281
4200U vs 6410

	VS
$134		$225
847 vs 3217U

	VS
$281
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410

	VS
$180
3470 vs 5200

	VS
$275		$161
4005U vs N3540

Intel Celeron G1610 vs AMD A4 5300