Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs A8-3500M

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3500M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.90
+47.5%
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.61

A8-3500M outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3500M and Celeron Dual-Core T1600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25442791
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-Core
Power efficiency2.391.62
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)1 May 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-3500M 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.5 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.66 GHz
Bus rateno data667 MHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size228 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million291 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A8-3500M 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 configuration1no data
SocketFS1PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3500M and Celeron Dual-Core T1600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620Gno data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3500M and Celeron Dual-Core T1600 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3500M and Celeron Dual-Core T1600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6620Gno 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. 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.

A8-3500M 0.90
+47.5%
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 0.61

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.

A8-3500M 1400
+47.4%
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 950

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.

A8-3500M 5170
+72.3%
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 3000

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.

A8-3500M 2256
+67.1%
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 1350

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.90 0.61
Recency 14 June 2011 1 May 2008
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm

A8-3500M has a 47.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

The A8-3500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3500M and Celeron Dual-Core T1600, 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 A8-3500M
A8-3500M
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Celeron Dual-Core T1600

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.


3.6 118 votes

Rate A8-3500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 13 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-3500M or Celeron Dual-Core T1600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.