Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs FX-8370
Aggregate performance score
FX-8370 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by a whopping 548% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1642 | 3034 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.93 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 1.18 | 0.65 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
FX-8370 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 1.66 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 667 MHz |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8370 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM3+ | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8370 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8370 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8370 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8370 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.50 | 0.54 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 1 May 2008 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
FX-8370 has a 548.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron Dual-Core T1600, on the other hand, has 257.1% lower power consumption.
The AMD FX-8370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8370 is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
