Core i3-330M vs Celeron G1610
Aggregate performance score
Celeron G1610 outperforms i3-330M by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2408 | 2661 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i3 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Arrandale (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 3 December 2012 (11 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $388 | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M 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 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 0.03 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 1 × 2.5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 3 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | 81+114 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 (rPGA) -100 (BGA) °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 382 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 1155 | BGA1288, PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 17.051 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD | Intel HD Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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 outperforms Core i3-330M by 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron G1610 outperforms Core i3-330M by 48% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Celeron G1610 outperforms Core i3-330M by 51% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Celeron G1610 outperforms Core i3-330M by 21% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.98 | 0.66 |
| Recency | 3 December 2012 | 7 January 2010 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron G1610 has a 48.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
i3-330M, on the other hand, has 100% more threads, and 57.1% lower power consumption.
The Celeron G1610 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-330M in performance tests.
Note that Celeron G1610 is a desktop processor while Core i3-330M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and Core i3-330M, 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.
