Ultra 5 238V vs Celeron G1630
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 5 238V outperforms Celeron G1630 by a whopping 1214% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2425 | 523 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 1.84 | 78.27 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Lunar Lake (2024) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 24 September 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V 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) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 4 |
| Low Power Efficient-cores | no data | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 37 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V 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 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | FCBGA2833 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | - | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN |
Security technologies
Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors | Intel Arc Graphics 130V |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | 1.85 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL) |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 3840x2400 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.2 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| PCI support | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.07 | 14.06 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 11.64 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 24 September 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ultra 5 238V has a 1214% higher aggregate performance score, 1411.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 11 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 633.3% more advanced lithography process, and 223.5% lower power consumption.
The Core Ultra 5 238V is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1630 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron G1630 is a desktop processor while Core Ultra 5 238V is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1630 and Core Ultra 5 238V, 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.
