Key Differences
In short — FX-8300 outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-8300 is 41 days older than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- 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
- Performs up to 1% better in Far Cry 6 than Celeron G1610 - 91 vs 90 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Far Cry 6
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FX-8300
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 |
