Pentium Gold G7400 vs Celeron T1600
Primary details
Comparing Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1371 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | no data | 8.72 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Alder Lake-S (2022) |
| Release date | 1 October 2008 (16 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | no data | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.075V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 46 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | - | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 710 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.35 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 16 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 October 2008 | 4 January 2022 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 46 Watt |
Celeron T1600 has 31.4% lower power consumption.
Pentium Gold G7400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 13 years.
We couldn't decide between Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron T1600 is a notebook processor while Pentium Gold G7400 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T1600 and Pentium Gold G7400, 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.
