Celeron E1600 vs Athlon X2 QL-64

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon X2 QL-64
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.39
Celeron E1600
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.53
+35.9%

Celeron E1600 outperforms Athlon X2 QL-64 by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30042851
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
Series2x AMD Athlonno data
Power efficiency1.050.77
Architecture codenameLion (2008−2009)Allendale (2006−2009)
Release date1 January 2009 (15 years ago)31 May 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speedno data2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate3600 MHzno data
L1 cache256 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512 KB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm65 nm
Die sizeno data77 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data73 °C
Number of transistorsno data105 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.5V

Compatibility

Information on Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketS1LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualizationno data
PowerNow+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR1, DDR2, DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600.

PCIe versionno data2.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon X2 QL-64 0.39
Celeron E1600 0.53
+35.9%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon X2 QL-64 622
Celeron E1600 840
+35%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.39 0.53
Recency 1 January 2009 31 May 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

Athlon X2 QL-64 has 85.7% lower power consumption.

Celeron E1600, on the other hand, has a 35.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.

The Celeron E1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X2 QL-64 in performance tests.

Be aware that Athlon X2 QL-64 is a notebook processor while Celeron E1600 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron E1600, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon X2 QL-64
Athlon X2 QL-64
Intel Celeron E1600
Celeron E1600

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 37 votes

Rate Athlon X2 QL-64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 5 votes

Rate Celeron E1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon X2 QL-64 or Celeron E1600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.