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 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
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 E2 E2-3250

Reasons to consider the
AMD E2 E2-3250

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD E2 E2-3250 vs the Intel Celeron G1610.

Features Key features of the Celeron G1610  vs E2 E2-3250 

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
E2 E2-3250 
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1155
FM1

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

details

Celeron G1610  vs
E2 E2-3250 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

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
Typical power consumption 44.69W 52.81W
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
AMD E2 E2-3250
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus