E2-3200 vs Celeron T1600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron T1600
2008
35 Watt
0.35
E2-3200
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.61
+74.3%

E2-3200 outperforms Celeron T1600 by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron T1600 and E2-3200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30642797
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.940.88
Architecture codenameno dataLlano (2011−2012)
Release date1 October 2008 (16 years ago)7 September 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron T1600 and E2-3200 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 coresno data2 (Dual-core)
Threadsno data2
Base clock speed1.66 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speedno data2.4 GHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data512 KB (per core)
L3 cache1 MB L2 Cache0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data228 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1.075V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron T1600 and E2-3200 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 configurationno data1
SocketPPGA478FM1
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T1600 and E2-3200. 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
Demand Based Switching-no data

Security technologies

Celeron T1600 and E2-3200 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 T1600 and E2-3200 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T1600 and E2-3200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataRadeon HD 6370D

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 T1600 0.35
E2-3200 0.61
+74.3%

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 T1600 551
E2-3200 968
+75.7%

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 T1600 192
E2-3200 298
+55.2%

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 T1600 353
E2-3200 525
+48.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.35 0.61
Recency 1 October 2008 7 September 2011
Chip lithography 65 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron T1600 has 85.7% lower power consumption.

E2-3200, on the other hand, has a 74.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

The E2-3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron T1600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron T1600 is a notebook processor while E2-3200 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T1600 and E2-3200, 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 T1600
Celeron T1600
AMD E2-3200
E2-3200

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.


2.6 7 votes

Rate Celeron T1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 23 votes

Rate E2-3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron T1600 or E2-3200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.