Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Core i3-6100H

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Core i3-6100H 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.

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Core i3-6100H: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron Dual-Core T1600

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,000 vs 3,003).
❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Core i3-6100H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i3-6100H

2015

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-6100H better than Celeron Dual-Core T1600?

Yes. Core i3-6100H is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% 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, Core i3-6100H is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-6100H is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-6100H is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i3-6100H comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron Dual-Core T1600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (20.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Core i3-6100H makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Core i3-6100H Technical Specifications

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

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.

Core i3-6100H

The Core i3-6100H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1440. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 3,003 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-6100H's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.66 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 versus 2.7 GHz on the Core i3-6100H — a 47.7% clock advantage for the Core i3-6100H. The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Core i3-6100H uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 scores 3,000 against the Core i3-6100H's 3,003 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i3-6100H.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1600	Core i3-6100H
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.66 GHz	2.7 GHz+63%
Base Clock	—	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	—	3 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	65 nm	14 nm-78%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	3,000	3,003

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i3-6100H uses BGA1440 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1600	Core i3-6100H
Socket	PGA478	BGA1440
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	667	—
Max RAM Capacity	4	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: false (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) / not specified (Core i3-6100H). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 rivals Pentium T2390.