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 MB Compared to all cpus, 2 MB l3 cache is just OK
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 better PassMark score 2,498 vs 800 More than 3x better PassMark score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 3,517 vs 1,332 Around 2.8x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 2 vs 1 Twice as many threads
Much more l3 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0 MB/core Compared to all cpus, 1 MB/core l3 cache per core is just OK
Newer Jan, 2013 vs May, 2010 Release date over 2 years later
Front view of AMD Sempron 145

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 145

Report a correction
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.05 GHz vs 2.69 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Higher clock speed 2.8 GHz vs 2.6 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 36.56W vs 44.69W Around 20% lower typical power consumption
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.28 GHz vs 2.68 GHz Around 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual commercial energy cost 39.42 $/year vs 48.18 $/year Around 20% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year vs 13.25 $/year Around 20% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron G1610 vs Sempron 145

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
Sempron 145
111,900 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
Sempron 145 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Single 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 45W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 10.84 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 39.42 $/year
Performance per watt 1.96 pt/W 2.06 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 36.56W

details

Celeron G1610  vs
Sempron 145 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 2 MB 0 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 0 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 6 9
Overclocked clock speed 2.69 GHz 4.05 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.68 GHz 4.28 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 2,763.7 1,763.8
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.69 GHz 4.05 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 Sempron 145
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus