Intel Core2 Duo T5870 vs Celeron T1600 |
First seen on June, 2012
Intel Core2 Duo T5870
- 2 GHz
- Dual core
0 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo T5870
 | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes |
VS
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of T5870 vs T1600 among laptop CPUs (over 15W)
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 | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
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? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
| CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Celeron T1600 vs the Core2 Duo T5870. | |||||||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo T5870 vs Celeron T1600
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
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo T5870 | vs | Celeron T1600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.66 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| P | |||
| 478 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | No | No | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 35W | 35W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 8.43 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 2.36 pt/W | 1.89 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 28.44W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 800 MHz | 667 MHz | |
details | Core2 Duo T5870 | vs | Celeron T1600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 65 nm | 65 nm | |
| Transistor count | 291,000,000 | 291,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 10 | 10 | |
| Voltage range | 1.07 - 1.18V | 1.07 - 1.18V | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.19 GHz | 2.27 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2 GHz | 1.67 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.19 GHz | 2.27 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | None | |
| Label | N/A | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
 Intel Core2 Duo T5870  Report a correction |  Intel Celeron T1600 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| T2370 vs T1600 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | ||
| 3217U vs T5870 | ||
 | VS | |
| T7300 vs T5870 | ||
 | VS | |
| $197 | ||
| T7250 vs T5870 | ||
 | VS | |
| $309 | ||
| T9300 vs T5870 | ||
 | VS | |
| $134 | ||
| T4400 vs T5870 | ||
 | VS | |
| $232 | ||
| B960 vs T5870 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS | |
| $350 | ||
| 7th Gen A12-9700P vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
