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 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
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
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 2.26 GHz More than 15% higher clock speed
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 2 vs 1 Twice as many threads
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly lower typical power consumption 44.69W vs 59.31W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Jul, 2004 Release date over 8 years later
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.68 GHz vs 2.27 GHz Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year vs 63.95 $/year Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year vs 17.59 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of Intel Celeron D 315J

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron D 315J

Report a correction
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.1 GHz vs 2.69 GHz More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)

Features Key features of the Celeron G1610  vs D 315J 

clock speed

Celeron G1610
2.6 GHz
Celeron D 315J
2.26 GHz

L2 cache

overclocked clock speed (air)

Celeron G1610
2.69 GHz
Celeron D 315J
3.1 GHz

overclocked clock speed (water)

Celeron G1610
2.68 GHz
Celeron D 315J
2.27 GHz

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
D 315J 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.26 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 1155
478

features

Has a NX bit Yes No
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 No

power consumption

TDP 55W 73W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 17.59 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 63.95 $/year
Typical power consumption 44.69W 59.31W

bus

Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

Celeron G1610  vs
D 315J 
Architecture x86-64 x86
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 90 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 26 17

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.69 GHz 3.1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.68 GHz 2.27 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 2,763.7 540.3
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.69 GHz 3.1 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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC Yes No
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
Intel Celeron D 315J
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus