Celeron G4900 vs G1610

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G1610
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 55 Watt
0.99
Celeron G4900
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 54 Watt
1.56
+57.6%

Celeron G4900 outperforms Celeron G1610 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24922136
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.012.95
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.642.63
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Coffee Lake (2017−2019)
Release date3 December 2012 (11 years ago)2 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$388$42

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron G4900 has 29400% better value for money than Celeron G1610.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.6 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz3.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rate5 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data31
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512 KB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)2 MB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size94 mm2126 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °C72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1155FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt54 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Key-+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2400
Maximum memory size32 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/s38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® ProcessorsIntel UHD Graphics 610
Max video memoryno data64 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HD-+
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHz1.05 GHz
InTru 3D-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution supportno data+
Max resolution over HDMI 1.4no data4096x2304@24Hz
Max resolution over eDPno data4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPortno data4096x2304@60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12
OpenGLno data4.5

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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 0.99
Celeron G4900 1.56
+57.6%

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
Celeron G4900 2394
+57.6%

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 408
Celeron G4900 605
+48.3%

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 675
Celeron G4900 1031
+52.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.99 1.56
Recency 3 December 2012 2 April 2018
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 54 Watt

Celeron G4900 has a 57.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 1.9% lower power consumption.

The Celeron G4900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1610 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and Celeron G4900, 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 G4900
Celeron G4900

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.


3.1 234 votes

Rate Celeron G1610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 115 votes

Rate Celeron G4900 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 G4900, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.