Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Athlon 64 X2 FX-60
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2810 | 2791 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 0.50 | 1.62 |
| Architecture codename | Toledo (2006) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 1.66 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | 667 MHz |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 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 Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 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 | no data | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 35 Watt |
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.
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 | 0.58 | 0.60 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 has a 3.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 214.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600.
Note that Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 and Celeron Dual-Core T1600, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
