Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs PRO A10-8770E

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron Dual-Core T1600

2 / 2

3,000

0.0%

3,001

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Ryzen AI Max 390

Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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 PRO A10-8770E is on rank 1035, so the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1600

#866

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

1467%

#867

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

1446%

#868

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

1327%

#869

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

1321%

#870

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

1309%

#872

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

1264%

#873

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1212%

#874

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1210%

#875

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1178%

#880

Celeron Dual-Core T1600

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

100%

#882

Athlon II N330

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

100%

#887

Core i7-7820EQ

MSRP: $378|Avg: $378

99%

#888

Celeron 7305

MSRP: $128|Avg: $107

98%

#889

E-300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $20

98%

#890

Core i7-7820HK

MSRP: $378|Avg: N/A

98%

#893

Pentium B940

MSRP: $134|Avg: $11

97%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar PRO A10-8770E

#1

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

41015%

#2

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

38755%

#3

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

28139%

#4

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

8477%

#5

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

6715%

#6

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

5874%

#7

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

3364%

#8

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

3321%

#9

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

3023%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

3023%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

2989%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

2909%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

2868%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

2856%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

2831%

#1035

PRO A10-8770E

MSRP: $395|Avg: $210

100%

#1036

Core 2 Duo E4700

MSRP: $133|Avg: $10

100%

#1037

Athlon 64 X2 5800+

MSRP: $230|Avg: $20

100%

#1038

Phenom II X2 B53

MSRP: $150|Avg: $15

100%

#1039

Core 2 Quad Q9300

MSRP: $266|Avg: $27

99%

#1040

Core 2 Duo E7200

MSRP: $133|Avg: $133

99%

#1041

Athlon II X4 638

MSRP: $300|Avg: $280

99%

#1043

Phenom X3 8750

MSRP: $195|Avg: $20

98%

#1044

Pentium G4400TE

MSRP: $300|Avg: $250

96%

#1045

Celeron 2.60

MSRP: $53|Avg: $10

96%

#1046

Core i7-990X

MSRP: $999|Avg: $225

94%

#1047

Phenom X4 9750B

MSRP: $215|Avg: $34

93%

#1048

Core 2 Duo E8200

MSRP: $163|Avg: $20

92%

#1049

Core 2 Quad Q9450

MSRP: $316|Avg: $15

92%

#1050

Core 2 Duo E8600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $95

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Generational Difference: This comparison involves processors from different technological eras. The PRO A10-8770E (2016) utilizes 28 nm technology and DDR4-2400, providing a fundamental performance advantage.

Insight	Celeron Dual-Core T1600	PRO A10-8770E
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($150)	⚠️ Higher cost ($210)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Carrizo (2015−2018) / 28 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 (2008) relies on 65 nm technology and older memory, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.

Insight	Celeron Dual-Core T1600	PRO A10-8770E
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+40%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($150)	⚠️ Higher cost ($210)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T1600 Benchmark Check

PRO A10-8770E Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and PRO A10-8770E

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.

PRO A10-8770E

The PRO A10-8770E is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Outubro 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Carrizo (2015−2018) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,001 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the PRO A10-8770E offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the PRO A10-8770E has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.66 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 versus 3.5 GHz on the PRO A10-8770E — a 71.3% clock advantage for the PRO A10-8770E. The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the PRO A10-8770E uses Carrizo (2015−2018) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 scores 3,000 against the PRO A10-8770E's 3,001 — a 0% lead for the PRO A10-8770E.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1600	PRO A10-8770E
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.66 GHz	3.5 GHz+111%
Base Clock	—	2.8 GHz
L2 Cache	1 MB	2048 kB+100%
Process	65 nm	28 nm-57%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Carrizo (2015−2018)
PassMark	3,000	3,001

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the PRO A10-8770E uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1600	PRO A10-8770E
Socket	PGA478	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
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 (PRO A10-8770E). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 rivals Pentium T2390.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1600	PRO A10-8770E
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 PRO A10-8770E debuted at $395. At current prices ($150 vs $210), the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is $60 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 delivers 20.0 pts/$ vs 14.3 pts/$ for the PRO A10-8770E — making the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 the 33.3% better value option.