Phenom II X3 710 vs Celeron G1610

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G1610
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 55 Watt
0.96
Phenom II X3 710
2009
3 cores / 3 threads, 95 Watt
0.98
+2.1%

Phenom II X3 710 outperforms Celeron G1610 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25042490
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0311.22
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.650.98
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Heka (2009−2010)
Release date3 December 2012 (12 years ago)9 February 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$388$85

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Phenom II X3 710 has 37300% better value for money than Celeron G1610.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710 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)3 (Tri-Core)
Threads23
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm45 nm
Die size94 mm2258 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data758 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710 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
SocketFCLGA1155AM3
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
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 Phenom II X3 710 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 Phenom II X3 710 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
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 Phenom II X3 710. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel ProcessorsOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710.

PCIe version2.02.0

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.

Celeron G1610 0.96
Phenom II X3 710 0.98
+2.1%

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 G1610 1529
Phenom II X3 710 1551
+1.4%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron G1610 414
+25.1%
Phenom II X3 710 331

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron G1610 690
Phenom II X3 710 832
+20.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 0.98
Recency 3 December 2012 9 February 2009
Physical cores 2 3
Threads 2 3
Chip lithography 22 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 95 Watt

Celeron G1610 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 72.7% lower power consumption.

Phenom II X3 710, on the other hand, has a 2.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and Phenom II X3 710, 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 G1610
Celeron G1610
AMD Phenom II X3 710
Phenom II X3 710

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.


3.1 236 votes

Rate Celeron G1610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 56 votes

Rate Phenom II X3 710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G1610 or Phenom II X3 710, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.