CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of G1610 vs Z515 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

6.4

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Atom Z515 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Atom Z515  based on its power consumption.

See full details

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 higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 1.2 GHz Around 2.2x higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
More l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Apr, 2009 Release date over 3 years later
Better PassMark score 2,498 vs 218 Around 11.5x better PassMark score
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Front view of Intel Atom Z515

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom Z515

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 1.14W vs 44.69W 39.3x lower typical power consumption
Significantly better performance per watt 6.36 pt/W vs 1.96 pt/W Around 3.2x better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 0.34 $/year vs 13.25 $/year 39.3x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 1.23 $/year vs 48.18 $/year 39.3x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron G1610 vs Atom Z515

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
Atom Z515 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 1.2 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 1155
441

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

bus

Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

Celeron G1610  vs
Atom Z515 
Architecture x86-64 x86
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 26 12

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

power consumption

TDP 55W 1.4W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 0.34 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 1.23 $/year
Performance per watt 1.96 pt/W 6.36 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 1.14W
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
Intel Atom Z515
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus