Celeron E1600 vs Athlon X2 BE-2300
Celeron E1600
Athlon X2 BE-2300
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 E1600 is positioned at rank 896 and the Athlon X2 BE-2300 is on rank 1011, so the Celeron E1600 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E1600
Performance Per Dollar Athlon X2 BE-2300
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron E1600 | Athlon X2 BE-2300 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($80) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Allendale (2006−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Brisbane (2007−2008) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron E1600 | Athlon X2 BE-2300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+620%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($80) |
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 E1600 and Athlon X2 BE-2300
Celeron E1600
The Celeron E1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 815 points. Launch price was $69.
Athlon X2 BE-2300
The Athlon X2 BE-2300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Brisbane (2007−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 905 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron E1600 and Athlon X2 BE-2300 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E1600 versus 1.9 GHz on the Athlon X2 BE-2300 — a 23.3% clock advantage for the Celeron E1600. The Celeron E1600 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Athlon X2 BE-2300 uses Brisbane (2007−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1600 scores 815 against the Athlon X2 BE-2300's 905 — a 10.5% lead for the Athlon X2 BE-2300. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron E1600 | Athlon X2 BE-2300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz+26% | 1.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.4 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (total) | 512 kB |
| Process | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Allendale (2006−2009) | Brisbane (2007−2008) |
| PassMark | 815 | 905+11% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 310 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 560 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron E1600 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon X2 BE-2300 uses AM2 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. The Athlon X2 BE-2300 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1600) and AMD AM2 (Athlon X2 BE-2300).
| Feature | Celeron E1600 | Athlon X2 BE-2300 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA775 | AM2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: No (Celeron E1600) / not specified (Athlon X2 BE-2300). Primary use case: Celeron E1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1600 rivals Pentium E2220.
| Feature | Celeron E1600 | Athlon X2 BE-2300 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | No | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron E1600 launched at $53 MSRP, while the Athlon X2 BE-2300 debuted at $100. At current prices ($10 vs $80), the Celeron E1600 is $70 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E1600 delivers 81.5 pts/$ vs 11.3 pts/$ for the Athlon X2 BE-2300 — making the Celeron E1600 the 151.2% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron E1600 | Athlon X2 BE-2300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $53-47% | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-88% | $80 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.5+621% | 11.3 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2007 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron E1600 and Athlon X2 BE-2300
