Celeron 430 vs G1610

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G1610
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 55 Watt
0.96
+433%
Celeron 430
2007
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.18

Celeron G1610 outperforms Celeron 430 by a whopping 433% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24963247
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.650.49
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Conroe-L (2007−2008)
Release date3 December 2012 (11 years ago)June 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$388$50

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430 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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed2.6 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512 KB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm65 nm
Die size94 mm277 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data60 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data105 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1V-1.3375V

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430 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
SocketFCLGA1155LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+-
Thermal Monitoring++
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Key-no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x+-
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processorsno data
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

Celeron G1610 0.96
+433%
Celeron 430 0.18

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.

Celeron G1610 1519
+426%
Celeron 430 289

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.

Celeron G1610 411
+165%
Celeron 430 155

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.

Celeron G1610 683
+327%
Celeron 430 160

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 0.18
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 22 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 35 Watt

Celeron G1610 has a 433.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 195.5% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron 430, on the other hand, has 57.1% lower power consumption.

The Celeron G1610 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 430 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and Celeron 430, 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.


Intel Celeron G1610
Celeron G1610
Intel Celeron 430
Celeron 430

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.


3.1 235 votes

Rate Celeron G1610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 159 votes

Rate Celeron 430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G1610 or Celeron 430, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.