Athlon II M300 vs Celeron G1630

CPU

GPU

Athlon II M300

2 Cores2 Thrd1 WWMax: 2 GHz2009

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron G1630

2 Cores2 Thrd55 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2013

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon II M300 vs Celeron G1630 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II M300

2 / 2

1,700

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron G1630

2 / 2

1,707

+0.4%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon II M300 vs Celeron G1630 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon II M300 vs Celeron G1630: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon II M300

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 55W, a 54W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,700 vs 1,707).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.0 vs 40.6 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1630 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron G1630

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $58 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 139.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 40.6 vs 17.0 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Athlon II M300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌5400% higher power demand at 55W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1630 better than Athlon II M300?

Yes. Celeron G1630 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron G1630 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 47 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1630 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron G1630 is the better buy right now. Celeron G1630 comes in $58 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 139.1% better value on MSRP (40.6 vs 17.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron G1630 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II M300 vs Celeron G1630 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon II M300

The Athlon II M300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Caspian (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g3. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,700 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron G1630

The Celeron G1630 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,707 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon II M300 and Celeron G1630 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon II M300 versus 2.8 GHz on the Celeron G1630 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Celeron G1630. The Athlon II M300 uses the Caspian (2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron G1630 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II M300 scores 1,700 against the Celeron G1630's 1,707 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron G1630.

Feature	Athlon II M300	Celeron G1630
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.8 GHz+40%
Base Clock	—	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Caspian (2009)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,700	1,707
Geekbench 6 Single	—	386
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	635

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II M300 uses the S1g3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G1630 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 800 on the Athlon II M300 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1630 — the Celeron G1630 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1630 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II M300) vs 16 (Celeron G1630) — the Celeron G1630 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: S1g3 (Athlon II M300) and H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1630).

Feature	Athlon II M300	Celeron G1630
Socket	S1g3	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	800	DDR3-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Athlon II M300) vs VT-x (Celeron G1630). The Celeron G1630 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Athlon II M300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1630 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon II M300 rivals Core 2 Duo T6400; Celeron G1630 rivals Pentium G2030.

Feature	Athlon II M300	Celeron G1630
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	None	HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II M300 was priced at $100, while the Celeron G1630 came in at $42. On launch pricing ($100 vs $42), Celeron G1630 was $58 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II M300 delivers 17.0 pts/$ vs 40.6 pts/$ for the Celeron G1630 — making the Celeron G1630 the 82% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II M300	Celeron G1630
MSRP	$100	$42-58%
Performance per Dollar	17.0	40.6+139%
Release Date	2009	2013

Search Athlon II M300 on Amazon

Search Celeron G1630 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.