Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G1610 outperforms the more expensive FX-8300 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G1610 is 41 days newer than the more expensive FX-8300.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 63% cheaper than FX-8300 - $27.05 vs $73.12
- Up to 63% better value when playing Control than FX-8300 - $0.15 vs $0.41 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD FX-8300 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8300
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Control
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
199
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.15/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 72 minutes ago
Buy for €81.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 72 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD FX-8300 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
Celeron | Collection | FX |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 95 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 16.5x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |