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 130 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 65% higher clock speed
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Front view of AMD Opteron 242

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 242

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 0.81W vs 44.69W 55x lower typical power consumption
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 0.24 $/year vs 13.25 $/year 55x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 0.88 $/year vs 48.18 $/year 55x lower annual commercial energy cost

Features Key features of the Celeron G1610  vs Opteron 242 

clock speed

Celeron G1610
2.6 GHz
Opteron 242
1.6 GHz

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
Opteron 242 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 1155
940

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3

details

Celeron G1610  vs
Opteron 242 
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 130 nm
Max CPUs 1 2

power consumption

TDP 55W 1W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 0.24 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 0.88 $/year
Typical power consumption 44.69W 0.81W
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 242
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus