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
Front view of Intel Celeron G1610T

Intel Celeron G1610T

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N3050

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N3050

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 4.88W vs 28.44W 5.8x lower typical power consumption
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much better performance per watt 8.65 pt/W vs 3.69 pt/W More than 2.2x better performance per watt
Newer Jan, 2015 vs Jan, 2013 Release date over 1 years later
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year vs 8.43 $/year 5.8x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year vs 30.66 $/year 5.8x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Celeron G1610T

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1610T

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 3.08 pt/$ vs 0.48 pt/$ More than 6.2x better performance per dollar
Higher clock speed 2.3 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 45% higher clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz vs 320 MHz More than 2x higher GPU clock speed
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 1,710 vs 879 Around 95% better geekbench 3 single core score
Better PassMark score 2,322 vs 885 More than 2.5x better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.44 GHz vs 2.14 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.3 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N3050 vs G1610T

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 N3050
350.4 MB/s
Celeron G1610T
119,750 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron N3050  vs
G1610T 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 2.3 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

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
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 6W 35W
Annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 8.65 pt/W 3.69 pt/W
Typical power consumption 4.88W 28.44W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

Celeron N3050  vs
G1610T 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.14 GHz 2.44 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz 2.3 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.14 GHz 2.44 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 3 3
GPU clock speed 320 MHz 650 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 21,333.32 MB/s
Maximum memory size 8,192 MB 32,768 MB
Intel Celeron N3050
Report a correction
Intel Celeron G1610T
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus