Buy on Amazon
$55
In Stock
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — FX-6350 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1610 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing FX-6350 is 147 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of AMD FX-6350
- Performs up to 1% better in Overwatch 2 than Celeron G1610 - 319 vs 317 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 33% cheaper than FX-6350 - $37.0 vs $55.0
- Up to 29% better value when playing Overwatch 2 than FX-6350 - $0.12 vs $0.17 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than AMD FX-6350 - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6350 doesn't have integrated graphics
Overwatch 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
AMD FD6350FRHKBOX FX-6350 FX-Series 6-Core Black Edition
Buy for $55 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 50 minutes ago
Intel Celeron G1610 2.60GHz LGA 1155 Processor BX80637G1610
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 50 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
FX-6350
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6350 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
|---|---|---|
Apr 29th, 2013 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| FX | Collection | Celeron |
| Vishera | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
| 4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 125 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 19.5x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
