Buy on Amazon
$37
In Stock
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — FX-8370 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-8370 is 638 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 87% cheaper than FX-8370 - $37.0 vs $276.99
- Up to 86% better value when playing Elden Ring than FX-8370 - $0.34 vs $2.5 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than AMD FX-8370 - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8370 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8370
- Performs up to 1% better in Elden Ring than Celeron G1610 - 111 vs 110 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Intel Celeron G1610 2.60GHz LGA 1155 Processor BX80637G1610
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 188 minutes ago
AMD FD8370FRHKBOX FX-8370 Black Edition 8 Core CPU Processor AM3+ 4300Mhz 125W 16MB
Buy for $276.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 189 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FX-8370
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD FX-8370 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 2nd, 2014 |
| 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 | 4.0 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 20.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
