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 newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 180 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 1.1 GHz More than 2.2x higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.25 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 2 vs 1 Twice as many threads
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Much more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Front view of AMD Athlon XP 1100

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon XP 1100

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD Athlon XP 1100 vs the Intel Celeron G1610.

Features Key features of the Celeron G1610  vs Athlon XP 1100 

clock speed

Celeron G1610
2.6 GHz
Athlon XP 1100
1.1 GHz

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
Athlon XP 1100 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 1.1 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 1155
462

features

Has a NX bit Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3

details

Celeron G1610  vs
Athlon XP 1100 
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 1 MB 0.25 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 180 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

power consumption

Typical power consumption 44.69W N/A
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
AMD Athlon XP 1100
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus