C-50 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 outperforms C-50 by a whopping 269% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and C-50 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2810 | 3290 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD C-Series |
| Power efficiency | 1.60 | 1.69 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Ontario (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and C-50 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and C-50 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 9 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and C-50. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and C-50 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and C-50. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 Single-channel |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6250 |
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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.59 | 0.16 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 4 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 9 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 has a 268.8% higher aggregate performance score.
C-50, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 288.9% lower power consumption.
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the C-50 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and C-50, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
