0 Comments
| Intel Core2 Duo E8400 vs Celeron G1610 |
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo E8400
![]() | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | ![]() | Significantly higher clock speed 3 GHz |
![]() | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz | ![]() | Supports trusted computing Yes |
VS
Released January, 2013
Intel Celeron G1610
- 2.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Celeron G1610
![]() | Has a built-in GPU Yes | ![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm |
![]() | Lower typical power consumption 44.69W | ![]() | Newer Jan, 2013 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 1 MB | 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Significantly higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.6 GHz | More than 15% higher clock speed | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 2.69 GHz | More than 55% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 6x more l2 cache per core | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 2.68 GHz | Around 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Lower typical power consumption | 44.69W | vs | 52.81W | More than 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
Newer | Jan, 2013 | vs | Jan, 2008 | Release date over 5 years later | |||
Lower annual home energy cost | 13.25 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | More than 15% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Lower annual commercial energy cost | 48.18 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs Celeron G1610
CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench
Core2 Duo E8400
2.41 mHash/s
Celeron G1610
2.96 mHash/s
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
2,982
Celeron G1610
3,499
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
1,625
Celeron G1610
1,970
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
128,000 MB/s
Celeron G1610
136,000 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
2,826
Celeron G1610
3,517
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
3,092
Celeron G1610
3,727
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Core2 Duo E8400
2,160
Celeron G1610
2,498
PassMark (Single Core)
Core2 Duo E8400
1,251
Celeron G1610
1,397
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.6 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 775 | |||
LGA 1155 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | Yes | 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 | 65W | 55W | |
Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 13.25 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 48.18 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 1.83 pt/W | 1.96 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 44.69W |
details | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 6 MB | 1 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 45 nm | 22 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 9 | 26 | |
overclocking | |||
Overclock popularity | 125 | 6 | |
Overclocked clock speed | 4.22 GHz | 2.69 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | 2.68 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | 2.69 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | None | GPU | |
Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics | |
Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
GPU clock speed | N/A | 650 MHz | |
Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,050 MHz | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 |
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 ![]() | Intel Celeron G1610 ![]() |
Desktops
Looking for a desktop?
- 5 desktops with the Intel Core2 Duo E8400, starting from $100
- 1 desktop with the Intel Celeron G1610, starting from $83
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | ||
E8400 vs Q6600 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $125 | |
E8400 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $125 | |
E8400 vs E7500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $179 | |
E8400 vs Q8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $64 | |
E8400 vs E5700 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $200 | |
E8400 vs E8500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $200 | |
E8400 vs Q9400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
6600K vs 6700K | ||