Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Phenom II X4 N970
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 N970 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by an impressive 72% 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 | 2729 | 3092 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 4x AMD Phenom II | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 16 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (17 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 N970 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.66 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 N970 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.
| Socket | S1 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2 MB | 1 MB |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.93 | 0.54 |
| Recency | 16 December 2010 | 1 May 2008 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2 Watt | 1 Watt |
Phenom II X4 N970 has a 72.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron Dual-Core T1600, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The AMD Phenom II X4 N970 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
