GX-210JA vs Celeron G1610

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking	2490	not rated
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Market segment	Desktop processor	Laptop
Series	no data	AMD
Power efficiency	1.64	no data
Architecture codename	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Temash (2013)
Release date	3 December 2012 (11 years ago)	23 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$388	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA 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
Base clock speed	2.6 GHz	no data
Boost clock speed	2.6 GHz	1 GHz
Bus rate	5 GT/s	no data
L1 cache	64 KB (per core)	128 KB
L2 cache	256 KB (per core)	1 MB
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	no data
Chip lithography	22 nm	28 nm
Die size	94 mm2	no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)	65 °C	no data
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA 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	1	no data
Socket	FCLGA1155	FT3 BGA
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions	Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2	86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX
AES-NI	-	+
AVX	+	+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)	+	no data
My WiFi	-	no data
Turbo Boost Technology	-	no data
Hyper-Threading Technology	-	no data
Idle States	+	no data
Thermal Monitoring	+	-

Security technologies

Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	-	no data
EDB	+	no data
Secure Key	-	no data
Anti-Theft	-	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA are enumerated here.

VT-d	-	no data
VT-x	+	no data
EPT	+	no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum memory size	32 GB	no data
Max memory channels	2	no data
Maximum memory bandwidth	21 GB/s	no data
ECC memory support	+	-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card	Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors	no data
Graphics max frequency	1.05 GHz	no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported

3

no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA.

PCIe version

2.0

no 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.

---

---

Pros & cons summary

---

Recency	3 December 2012	23 May 2013
Chip lithography	22 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	6 Watt

---

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and GX-210JA, 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.

---