Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400 based on its overclocking.
See full details Intel Core2 Duo E8400 vs Celeron G1610 |
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
3.3 Out of 10
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
4.9 Out of 10
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 |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E8400 vs G1610 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 | |
| 4.9 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
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 | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs Celeron G1610
CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench
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
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
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  Report a correction |  Intel Celeron G1610 Report a correction |
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 |  |
| $145 | ||
| E8400 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $125 | |
| E8400 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $125 | |
| E8400 vs E7500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $179 | |
| E8400 vs Q8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $64 | |
| E8400 vs E5700 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $287 | |
| E8400 vs Q9550 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $200 | |
| E8400 vs Q9400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
