E2-9010 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T1600
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.61

E2-9010 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking26812605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreAMD Bristol Ridge
Architecture codenameMerom (2006−2008)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date1 May 2008 (16 years ago)1 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Current price$66 $561

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010 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 GHz
Boost clock speed1.66 GHz2.2 GHz
Bus support667 MHzno data
L2 cache1 MB2048 KB
Chip lithography65 nm28 nm
Die size143 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Number of transistors291 Million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010 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.

SocketPPGA478FP4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt10-15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataSingle-Channel DDR4-2133, Virtualization,
AES-NIno data1
FMAno dataFMA4
PowerTuneno data-
TrueAudiono data-
PowerNowno data-
PowerGatingno data-
Out-of-band client managementno data-
VirusProtectno data-
RAIDno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
IOMMU 2.0no data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4-1866
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R2 Graphics
iGPU core countno data2
Endurono data+
Switchable graphicsno data1
UVDno data+
VCEno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPortno data+
HDMIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkanno data1

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 0.61
E2-9010 0.71
+16.4%

E2-9010 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 950
E2-9010 1093
+15.1%

E2-9010 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by 15% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 3000
E2-9010 3268
+8.9%

E2-9010 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by 9% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 0.71
Recency 1 May 2008 1 June 2016
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 10 Watt

The E2-9010 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and E2-9010, 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.


Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
AMD E2-9010
E2-9010

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.


3.8 11 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 28 votes

Rate E2-9010 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T1600 or E2-9010, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.