Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs FX-4300
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
FX-4300
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 FX-4300 is on rank 696, so the FX-4300 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 FX-4300
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | FX-4300 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($150) | ✅ More affordable ($25) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Vishera (2012−2015) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | FX-4300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+499%) |
| 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 FX-4300
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.
FX-4300
The FX-4300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,995 points. Launch price was $122.
Processing Power
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the FX-4300 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-4300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.66 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 versus 4 GHz on the FX-4300 — a 82.7% clock advantage for the FX-4300. The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the FX-4300 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 scores 3,000 against the FX-4300's 2,995 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T1600.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | FX-4300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.66 GHz | 4 GHz+141% |
| Base Clock | — | 3.8 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4096 kB+300% |
| Process | 65 nm | 32 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Merom (2006−2008) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| PassMark | 3,000 | 2,995 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the FX-4300 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | FX-4300 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | AM3+ |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | 667 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | ❌ | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: false (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) / not specified (FX-4300). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 rivals Pentium T2390.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | FX-4300 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | false | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 launched at $150 MSRP, while the FX-4300 debuted at $122. At current prices ($150 vs $25), the FX-4300 is $125 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 delivers 20.0 pts/$ vs 119.8 pts/$ for the FX-4300 — making the FX-4300 the 142.8% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | FX-4300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $122-19% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $25-83% |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.0 | 119.8+499% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2012 |
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 FX-4300
