Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Athlon X4 830
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Athlon X4 830
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is positioned at rank 880 and the Athlon X4 830 is on rank 476, so the Athlon X4 830 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Performance Per Dollar Athlon X4 830
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Athlon X4 830 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($150) | ✅ More affordable ($25) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Kaveri (2014−2015) / 28 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Athlon X4 830 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+504%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($150) | ✅ More affordable ($25) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Athlon X4 830
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.66 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 3,000 points. Launch price was $69.
Athlon X4 830
The Athlon X4 830 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 3,018 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon X4 830 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Athlon X4 830 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.66 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 versus 3.4 GHz on the Athlon X4 830 — a 68.8% clock advantage for the Athlon X4 830. The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Athlon X4 830 uses Kaveri (2014−2015) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 scores 3,000 against the Athlon X4 830's 3,018 — a 0.6% lead for the Athlon X4 830.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Athlon X4 830 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.66 GHz | 3.4 GHz+105% |
| Base Clock | — | 3 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
| Process | 65 nm | 28 nm-57% |
| Architecture | Merom (2006−2008) | Kaveri (2014−2015) |
| PassMark | 3,000 | 3,018 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon X4 830 uses FM2+ (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 versus DDR3-2133 on the Athlon X4 830 — the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 supports 198.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon X4 830 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 4 — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) vs 16 (Athlon X4 830) — the Athlon X4 830 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45,GM47,PM45 (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) and AMD FM2+ (Athlon X4 830).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Athlon X4 830 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | FM2+ |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | 667+22133% | DDR3-2133 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 | 64 GB+1677721500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: false (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) / not specified (Athlon X4 830). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 rivals Pentium T2390.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Athlon X4 830 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | false | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 launched at $150 MSRP, while the Athlon X4 830 debuted at $70. At current prices ($150 vs $25), the Athlon X4 830 is $125 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 delivers 20.0 pts/$ vs 120.7 pts/$ for the Athlon X4 830 — making the Athlon X4 830 the 143.1% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Athlon X4 830 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $70-53% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $25-83% |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.0 | 120.7+504% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2015 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Athlon X4 830
