Key Differences
In short — FX-4300 outperforms the more expensive Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-4300 is 41 days older than the more expensive Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD FX-4300 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-4300
- Performs up to 0% better in Overwatch 2 than Celeron G1610 - 318 vs 317 FPS
- Up to 66% cheaper than Celeron G1610 - €24.38 vs €72.66
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 4 vs 2 threads
Overwatch 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Buy for €72.66 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 74701 minutes ago
Buy for €24.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 74702 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
426
95.08928571428571%
Multi-Core
739
67.79816513761467%
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD FX-4300 |
---|---|---|
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 | 4 |
2 | Threads | 4 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 95 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |