Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron E1600

Aggregate performance score

Celeron E1600
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.53
+17.8%
Athlon 64 FX-60
2006
2 cores / 2 threads, 110 Watt
0.45

Celeron E1600 outperforms Athlon 64 FX-60 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28512936
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.770.39
Architecture codenameAllendale (2006−2009)Toledo (2006)
Release date31 May 2009 (15 years ago)January 2006 (18 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60 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 speed2.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache512 KB (shared)2 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm90 nm
Die size77 mm2199 mm2
Maximum core temperature73 °Cno data
Number of transistors105 million233 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.5Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60 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
SocketLGA775939
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt110 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60.

PCIe version2.0no data

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 E1600 0.53
+17.8%
Athlon 64 FX-60 0.45

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.

Celeron E1600 840
+18.5%
Athlon 64 FX-60 709

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 0.45
Chip lithography 65 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 110 Watt

Celeron E1600 has a 17.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 69.2% lower power consumption.

The Celeron E1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 FX-60 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E1600 and Athlon 64 FX-60, 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 E1600
Celeron E1600
AMD Athlon 64 FX-60
Athlon 64 FX-60

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.


3.4 5 votes

Rate Celeron E1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 10 votes

Rate Athlon 64 FX-60 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E1600 or Athlon 64 FX-60, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.