Intel Celeron E3200 vs G1610

Mini Review

Intel Celeron E3200 advantages



Intel Celeron E3200
  • None

Intel Celeron G1610 advantages



Picture
is not
available
  • In single-threaded tasks, this microprocessor is 54% faster.
  • Multi-threaded performance of the processor is better.
  • The Intel G1610 CPU performs 51% faster in memory-intensive applications.
  • The Intel Celeron G1610 processor supports SSE4.1 and SSE4.2 instructions.
  • Like many modern microprocessors, the Celeron G1610 has integrated Graphics Processing Unit. This graphics can be used for casual gaming and 3D apps.
  • Power consumption of the Celeron G1610 is lower.

E3200 vs G1610 performance comparison

The charts in the table below illustrate relative performance of Celeron E3200 and Celeron G1610 CPUs in different program types. The numbers for 'Single-threaded performance' and 'Multi-threaded performance' charts are calculated as an average of several related benchmarks, that you can view in the "Benchmarks" tab. Consequentally, the displayed results may differ from results, that you may receive in individual tests. We also averaged the numbers for task type specific benchmarks and all-around performance benchmarks, and presented them in the 'Overall performance' chart.
Single-threaded performance
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
 
 
1
 
1.54
 
 
Higher is better
Multi-threaded performance
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
 
 
1
 
1.61
 
 
Higher is better
Memory-intensive applications
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
 
 
1
 
1.51
 
 
Higher is better
Overall performance
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
 
 
1
 
1.55
 
 
Higher is better

  - Intel Celeron E3200       - Intel Celeron G1610

Please see the "Benchmarks" tab for complete list of benchmarks, showing performance difference between Intel Celeron E3200 and Intel G1610 in various types of applications.


E3200 vs G1610 power consumption comparison

Thermal Design Power
80
64
48
32
16
0
 
 
65W
 
55W
 
 
Lower is better
 

Detailed side by side comparison of Intel E3200 vs Celeron G1610 specs can be found in the "Specifications" tab. Much more detailed comparison of low level features of both microprocessors is located in the "CPUIDs" tab.


Pros and Cons summary

Celeron E3200 Celeron G1610
General recommendations:
None
  General recommendations:
Considerably higher overall performance,
Features SSE4.1 / SSE4.2 instructions,
Includes HD (Ivy Bridge) GPU,
Needs less power

Drawbacks:

Significantly worse overall performance,
Lacks some instructions,
No on-chip graphics,
Higher power consumption,
The socket is obsolete
 

Drawbacks:

None

Similar processors

Celeron E3200 Celeron G1610
 

Similar processors use the same core and fit the same socket as Celeron E3200 and Intel G1610.

Jump to:
  • Benchmarks
  • CPUIDs
  • Comments
 

More comparisons

Compare Intel Celeron E3200 with...

Other Celeron Dual-Core CPU:

Any CPU:


Compare Intel Celeron G1610 with...

Other Celeron Dual-Core CPU:

Any CPU:


Note: To see differences with any CPU, type in any combination of the following into the "Any CPU" field: manufacturer name, full or partial family name, model number, part number, core name, socket name, operating frequency, bus speed (must have FSB suffix), and the last level cache. Here are some valid searches:

  i5-3570K
  Intel Celeron 2 GHz
  Core
  Pentium 4 800FSB
  AMD 3.3GHz 8MB

Specifications

Please visit Intel Celeron E3200 and Intel Celeron G1610 pages for more complete specifications of both microprocessors.

 Intel Celeron E3200Intel Celeron G1610
Market segmentDesktop
ManufacturerIntel
FamilyCeleron Dual-Core
Basic details
Model numberE3200G1610
CPU part numberAT80571RG0561MLCM8063701444901
Box part numberBX80571E3200
BXC80571E3200
BX80637G1610
BXC80637G1610
Introduction dateAugust 31, 2009January 20, 2013
Current official price $42 (as of Mar 2014)
 
CPU features
Core nameWolfdaleIvy Bridge
MicroarchitectureCoreIvy Bridge
Technology (micron)0.0450.022
Data width (bits)64
SocketSocket 775Socket 1155
Frequency (MHz)24002600
Bus speed (MHz)800 
Clock Multiplier1226
L1 cache64 KB (code) / 64 KB (data)
L2 cache (KB)1024512
L3 cache (KB) 2048
Max temperature (°C)74.1 
TDP (Watt)6555
Max power dissipation (Watt)98.89 
Core voltage (V)0.85 - 1.3625 
Cores2
Threads2
Multiprocessing1
 
Instruction set extensions
AMD64 / EM64T 64-bit technology+
MMX+
SSE+
SSE2+
SSE3+
SSE4.1-+
SSE4.2-+
SSSE3 / Supplemental SSE3+
 
Supported technologies
PowerNow! / Enhanced SpeedStep+
Virtualization+
Virus Protection / Execute Disable bit+
 
Integrated Graphics
GPU TypeNoneHD (Ivy Bridge)
 
Integrated Memory Controller(s)
The number of controllers01
Notes:

Rows with different specifications or features are highlighted.

For detailed specifications of "Intel Celeron E3200" or "Intel Celeron G1610" parts please click on the links in the table header.

Benchmarks

System setup

Intel Celeron E3200 and G1610 processors were tested using different system components, that are identified by MB, RAM and VID columns in the tables below. The numbers in each of these columns correspond to one of motherboards (MB), memory configurations (RAM) or graphics adapters (VID), listed below:

MB - Motherboard(s):
1. ASUS P8P67
2. ASROCK 4CORE1600TWINS-P35
3. ASUS P8H61-M

RAM - Memory:
1. 2 GB DUAL-CHANNEL CORSAIR TR3X3G1600C9 DDR3
2. 2 GB DUAL-CHANNEL CORSAIR CM3X1024-1333C9 DDR3

VID - Video card(s):
1. MSI R6670 1GB GDDR5 (ATI RADEON)
2. POWERCOLOR 24PRO256M DDR2 (ATI RADEON HD2400)
3. INTEGRATED ON-CHIP INTEL SANDY BRIDGE GRAPHICS

All tests were performed at default frequency and voltage, using manufacturer's stock fan/heatsink. None of the components were overclocked. Motherboard BIOS options were left at default settings.

The results of all benchmarks are broken into four categories: multi-threaded, single-threaded, memory intensive and graphics / gaming.


Celeron E3200 vs G1610 single-threaded benchmarks

Single-threaded benchmarks run on a single CPU core, and do not depend on such features as the number of cores, or Hyper-Threading technology. Additionally, they do not utilize on-chip caches, dedicated to other cores.

     

    Intel Celeron E3200           Intel Celeron G1610

3DMark03 CPU score benchmark

Uses DirectX software vertex shader to run Wings of Fury and Trolls' Lair games, and calculates a 3DMark03 CPU score based on averaged number of frames per second, achieved by the CPU/GPU combination.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
54.8%222
43.6%323

CINEBENCH R10 CPU score (1 core) benchmark

Measures performance of a single-core rendering of a photo-realistic 3D image using CINEMA 4D software engine.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
99.8%323
67.2%222

PCMark2002 CPU score benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%323
100%111
84.8%222

Super PI (1M) benchmark

Measures time, required to calculate the first 1 million digits after the decimal point in the number Pi.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
99.2%323
62.5%222


Celeron E3200 vs G1610 multi-threaded benchmarks

Multi-threaded benchmarks utilize all CPU cores and other on-chip resources (on-chip caches, internal buffers, etc). Intel's Hyper-Threading feature also helps to improve multi-threading performance.

     

    Intel Celeron E3200           Intel Celeron G1610

CINEBENCH R10 CPU score benchmark

Measures performance of multi-core rendering of a photo-realistic 3D image using CINEMA 4D software engine.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
98.9%323
65.9%222

CINEBENCH R10 render time (seconds) benchmark

Measures time taken to render a photo-realistic 3D image using CINEMA 4D software engine.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
98.9%323
65.9%222

Euler3D benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
98.6%323
51.2%222

Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) benchmark

Runs Dhrystone test on all cores, and reports estimated integer performance in MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second).
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%323
99.7%111
84.1%222

Sandra MultiMedia Floating Point (it/s) benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%323
99.5%111
86.3%222

    Intel Celeron E3200           Intel Celeron G1610

Sandra MultiMedia Integer (it/s) benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%222
92.0%323
91.7%111

Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) benchmark

Runs Whetstone test on all cores, and reports estimated floating-point performance in MFLOPS (Millions of Floating-Point Operations Per Second).
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%323
99.8%111
99.7%222

Sandra Whetstone SSE2 (MFLOPS) benchmark

Runs SSE2-enabled Whetstone test on all cores, and reports estimated floating-point performance in MFLOPS (Millions of Floating-Point Operations Per Second).
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%323
99.6%111
89.3%222

wPrime v1.55 (32M) benchmark

wPrime benchmark measures time taken to calculate square roots of numbers from 1 to 33554431.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
99.7%323
68.8%222


Celeron E3200 vs G1610 graphics benchmarks

Graphics benchmarks depend on the type of integrated or discrete graphics adapter, and to less extent on the processor performance. Because these benchmarks are synthetic, they may not truly represent gaming performance. However, they still can be used to estimate whether one processor will perform faster or slower than another CPU in games and other 3D tasks.

Important! The processors were tested using different types of graphics adapters, that may not be suitable for comparison.
     

    Intel Celeron E3200           Intel Celeron G1610

3DMark03 game score benchmark

Measures graphics and 3D game performance of discrete and integrated GPUs using 4 different game simulations, that have varying level of DirectX support from version 7 to version 9.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
22.6%323
9.0%222

3DMark2001 score benchmark

Runs a series of game simulations and feature tests to measure graphics and 3D game performance of discrete and integrated GPUs. It utilizes a single CPU core, and it is compatible with DirectX 8 and later APIs.
Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
34.3%323
26.0%222

CINEBENCH R10 OpenGL score benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
34.5%323
31.6%222


Celeron E3200 vs G1610 memory performance

Memory-intensive tests or programs move large amounts of data to/from memory, and they depend more on memory throughput and the size of on-chip caches, rather than on CPU integer/FP/SIMD performance.

     

    Intel Celeron E3200           Intel Celeron G1610

7Zip compressing/decompressing speed (1 thread) benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
98.1%323
75.0%222

PCMark2002 Memory score benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
96.6%323
32.4%222

WinRAR compressing/decompressing speed benchmark

Longer is better <MBRAMVID
100%111
97.1%323
65.4%222

CPUIDs

The table below compares two random CPUID records for Intel Celeron E3200 and Intel Celeron G1610 microprocessors, that were submitted to our CPUID database. Please note that different steppings of Intel processors, identified by S-spec numbers or CPUID, may have slightly different features. For that reason the comparison table below only applies to CPUs with specific S-Spec number / CPUID.

  CPUID 1 CPUID 2
ManufacturerIntel
CPU FamilyCeleron Dual-CoreCore i3 / Core i3 Mobile / Core i5 / Core i5 Mobile / Core i7 / Core i7 Mobile / Core i7 Mobile Extreme Edition / Pentium Dual-C
Model / Processor NumberE32002.60 GHz
Frequency2400 MHz2593 MHz
CWID version0.30.5
Part numberAT80571RG0561MLCM8063701444901
S-Spec / Stepping CodeSLGU5SR10K
 
General information
VendorGenuineIntel
Processor name (BIOS)Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU E3200 @ 2.40GHz Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1610 @ 2.60GHz
Cores2
Logical processors2
Processor typeOriginal OEM Processor
CPUID signature1067A306A9
Family 6 (06h)
Model23 (017h)58 (03Ah)
Stepping10 (0Ah) 9 (09h)
TLB/Cache details64-byte Prefetching
Data TLB: 4-KB Pages, 4-way set associative, 256 entries
Data TLB: 4-MB Pages, 4-way set associative, 32 entries
Instruction TLB: 2-MB pages, 4-way, 8 entries or 4M pages, 4-way, 4 entries
Instruction TLB: 4-KB Pages, 4-way set associative, 128 entries
L1 Data TLB: 4-KB pages, 4-way set associative, 16 entries
L1 Data TLB: 4-MB pages, 4-way set associative, 16 entries
64-byte Prefetching
Data TLB0: 2-MB or 4-MB pages, 4-way set associative, 32 entries
Data TLB: 4-KB Pages, 4-way set associative, 64 entries
Instruction TLB: 4-KB Pages, 4-way set associative, 128 entries
L2 TLB: 1-MB, 4-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Shared 2nd-level TLB: 4 KB pages, 4-way set associative, 512 entries
 
Cache
L1 data: Associativity8-way set associative
L1 data: Comments Direct-mapped
L1 data: Line size64 bytes
L1 data: Size32 KB2 x 32 KB
L1 instruction: Associativity8-way set associative
L1 instruction: Comments Direct-mapped
L1 instruction: Line size64 bytes
L1 instruction: Size32 KB2 x 32 KB
L2: Associativity4-way set associative8-way set associative
L2: Comments Non-inclusive|Direct-mapped
L2: Line size64 bytes
L2: Size1 MB2 x 256 KB
L3: Associativity 8-way set associative
L3: Comments Inclusive|Shared between all cores
L3: Line size 64 bytes
L3: Size 2 MB
 
Instruction set extensions
MMX+
SSE+
SSE2+
SSE3+
SSE4.1-+
SSE4.2-+
SSSE3+
 
Additional instructions
CLFLUSH+
CMOV+
CMPXCHG16B+
CMPXCHG8B+
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB-+
FXSAVE/FXRSTORE+
MONITOR/MWAIT+
PCLMULDQ-+
POPCNT-+
RD/WR FSGSBASE instructions-+
RDTSCP-+
SYSENTER/SYSEXIT+
XSAVE / XRESTORE states+
 
Major features
64-bit / Intel 64+
Enhanced SpeedStep+
Intel Virtualization+
NX bit/XD-bit-+
On-chip Floating Point Unit+
 
Other features
36-bit page-size extensions+
64-bit debug store+
Advanced programmable interrupt controller+
CPL qualified debug store+
Debug store+
Debugging extensions+
Digital Thermal Sensor capability+
LAHF / SAHF support in 64-bit mode+
Machine check architecture+
Machine check exception+
Memory-type range registers+
Model-specific registers+
Page attribute table+
Page global extension+
Page-size extensions (4MB pages)+
Pending break enable+
Perfmon and Debug capability+
Physical address extensions+
Power Limit Notification capability-+
Process context identifiers-+
Self-snoop+
Supervisor Mode Execution Protection-+
TSC rate is ensured to be invariant across all states-+
Thermal monitor+
Thermal monitor 2+
Thermal monitor and software controlled clock facilities+
Time stamp counter+
Timestamp counter deadline-+
Virtual 8086-mode enhancements+
xTPR Update Control+
+ - feature is supported
- - feature is not supported
Features, not supported by all processors in the table, are not displayed

Comments (0)
Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy · Contact Us (c) Copyright 2003 - 2010 Gennadiy Shvets