Celeron G1610 vs FX-8300

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8300
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.36
+250%
Celeron G1610
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 55 Watt
0.96

FX-8300 outperforms Celeron G1610 by a whopping 250% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8300 and Celeron G1610 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15642496
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency3.351.65
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)3 December 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$388

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8300 and Celeron G1610 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz2.6 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB256 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size315 mm294 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data65 °C
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8300 and Celeron G1610 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
SocketAM3+FCLGA1155
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt55 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and Celeron G1610. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

FX-8300 and Celeron G1610 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and Celeron G1610 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and Celeron G1610. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1.05 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-8300 and Celeron G1610 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8300 and Celeron G1610.

PCIe versionn/a2.0

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.

FX-8300 3.36
+250%
Celeron G1610 0.96

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.

FX-8300 5338
+251%
Celeron G1610 1519

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.

FX-8300 457
+11.7%
Celeron G1610 409

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.

FX-8300 1720
+154%
Celeron G1610 678

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.36 0.96
Recency 23 October 2012 3 December 2012
Physical cores 8 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 55 Watt

FX-8300 has a 250% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Celeron G1610, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 72.7% lower power consumption.

The FX-8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1610 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8300 and Celeron G1610, 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.


AMD FX-8300
FX-8300
Intel Celeron G1610
Celeron G1610

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.


4.2 2361 vote

Rate FX-8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 235 votes

Rate Celeron G1610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8300 or Celeron G1610, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.