Celeron G1610T vs A6-3400M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-3400M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.75
Celeron G1610T
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.84
+12%

Celeron G1610T outperforms A6-3400M by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26532577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data6.67
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD A-Seriesno data
Power efficiency2.032.27
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)3 December 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.4 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz2.3 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size228 mm294 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data65 °C
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T 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
SocketFS1FCLGA1155
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480GIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T 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 A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T 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 A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T. 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 card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6520G (400 MHz)Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1.05 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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.

A6-3400M 0.75
Celeron G1610T 0.84
+12%

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.

A6-3400M 1191
Celeron G1610T 1327
+11.4%

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.

A6-3400M 211
Celeron G1610T 329
+55.9%

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.

A6-3400M 522
Celeron G1610T 582
+11.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 0.84
Integrated graphics card 0.78 0.77
Recency 14 June 2011 3 December 2012
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm

A6-3400M has 1.3% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron G1610T, on the other hand, has a 12% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

The Celeron G1610T is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-3400M in performance tests.

Be aware that A6-3400M is a notebook processor while Celeron G1610T is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-3400M and Celeron G1610T, 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 A6-3400M
A6-3400M
Intel Celeron G1610T
Celeron G1610T

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.


3.6 172 votes

Rate A6-3400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 10 votes

Rate Celeron G1610T on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-3400M or Celeron G1610T, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.