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

Intel Celeron G1620

Front view of Intel Celeron G1620
Front view of Intel Celeron 573

Intel Celeron 573

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron G1620

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1620

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 1 GHz Around 2.8x higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 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
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 better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.79 GHz vs 1 GHz More than 2.8x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Jul, 2006 Release date over 6 years later
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.7 GHz vs 1 GHz Around 2.8x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron 573

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 573

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 44.69W 5.5x lower typical power consumption
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 13.25 $/year 5.5x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 48.18 $/year 5.5x lower annual commercial energy cost

Features Key features of the Celeron G1620  vs 573 

clock speed

Celeron G1620
2.7 GHz
Celeron 573
1 GHz

L2 cache

Celeron G1620
0.5 MB
Celeron 573
0.5 MB

overclocked clock speed (air)

Celeron G1620
2.79 GHz
Celeron 573
1 GHz

overclocked clock speed (water)

Celeron G1620
2.7 GHz
Celeron 573
1 GHz

TDP

Celeron G1620
55W
Celeron 573
10W

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Celeron G1620  vs
573 
Clock speed 2.7 GHz 1 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 1155
479

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 10W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 8.76 $/year
Typical power consumption 44.69W 8.13W

details

 Celeron G1620  vs
573 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 0.5 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking
Overclocked clock speed 2.79 GHz 1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.7 GHz 1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.79 GHz 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

bus
Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron G1620
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 573
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss