In Deathloop, the FX-9370 is slightly slower than the Celeron G1610. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
FX-9370
- Is 6 months and 7 days newer – Jun 11, 2013 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 6 months and 7 days newer
Celeron G1610
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 222 vs 220 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 75% less energy – 55 vs 220 Watts
- Consumes up to 75% less energy
Deathloop FPS Calculator
FX-9370 vs Celeron G1610: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
222 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
167 FPS
100%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.22/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-9370 vs Celeron G1610 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-9370 vs Celeron G1610 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-9370
Jun 11th, 2013
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
4.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
2 MB
25%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
59%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-9370 Jun 11th, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jun 11th, 2013 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1155 |
| 220W | Power Consumption | 55W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Intel HD |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
