CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of G1610 vs E3400 among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)

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

Fire Strike

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?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

6.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron E3400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron E3400  based on its overclocking.

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 newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Front view of Intel Celeron E3400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron E3400

Report a correction
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.86 GHz vs 2.69 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron G1610 vs E3400

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
Celeron E3400
110,600 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
E3400 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1155
LGA 775

features

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

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
Performance per watt 2.03 pt/W 1.64 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 52.81W

details

Celeron G1610  vs
E3400 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 26 13

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.69 GHz 3.86 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz 2.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.69 GHz 3.86 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

bus

Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
Intel Celeron E3400
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 1 comment.
E3400 doesn't have L3 cache!
comments powered by Disqus