Ryzen 7 2700 vs Celeron G1610
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms Celeron G1610 by a whopping 929% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2507 | 785 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 8.72 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | 1.65 | 14.38 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 3 December 2012 (12 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $388 | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 7 2700 has 28967% better value for money than Celeron G1610.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA |
| 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 | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 Ryzen 7 2700 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 Ryzen 7 2700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors | - |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | - |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.96 | 9.88 |
| Recency | 3 December 2012 | 19 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron G1610 has 18.2% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 2700, on the other hand, has a 929.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 83.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 7 2700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1610 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and Ryzen 7 2700, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
