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

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
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 44.69W vs 137.63W 3.1x lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per watt 1.96 pt/W vs 0.79 pt/W Around 2.5x better performance per watt
Much more l3 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core 8x more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year vs 48.4 $/year 3.7x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year vs 137.53 $/year 2.9x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Jan, 2010 Release date over 2 years later
Front view of AMD Athlon II X4 635

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon II X4 635

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 2.9 GHz vs 2.6 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.58 GHz vs 2.69 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.9 GHz vs 2.68 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron G1610 vs Athlon II X4 635

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron G1610
136,000 MB/s
Athlon II X4 635
116,950 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
Athlon II X4 635 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.9 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 1155
AM3

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 55W 95W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 48.4 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 137.53 $/year
Performance per watt 1.96 pt/W 0.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 137.63W

details

Celeron G1610  vs
Athlon II X4 635 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 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 0.13 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.69 GHz 3.58 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.68 GHz 2.9 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.69 GHz 3.58 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 650 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz N/A
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
AMD Athlon II X4 635
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus