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 G1610 vs Celeron J4005 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 G1610 vs Celeron J4005: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G1610

2012

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 6) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (778 vs 800).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Celeron J4005 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌450% higher power demand at 55W vs 10W.

Celeron J4005

2017

Why buy it

✅+2.8% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 10W instead of 55W, a 45W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (450 vs 456).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J4005 better than Celeron G1610?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron G1610 is ahead with a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J4005 pulls ahead with 2.8% better Geekbench multi-core. Celeron J4005 also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J4005 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.8% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Celeron J4005 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron J4005 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you 2.8% better Geekbench multi-core. Celeron G1610 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (36.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

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

Celeron J4005 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2012), 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron G1610 vs Celeron J4005 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G1610

The Celeron G1610 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,550 points. Launch price was $388.

Celeron J4005

The Celeron J4005 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 December 2017 (7 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont Plus (2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,543 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron G1610 and Celeron J4005 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron G1610 versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron J4005 — a 3.8% clock advantage for the Celeron J4005 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron G1610 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron J4005 uses Goldmont Plus (2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1610 scores 1,550 against the Celeron J4005's 1,543 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron G1610. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 456 vs 450, a 1.3% lead for the Celeron G1610 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 778 vs 800 (2.8% advantage for the Celeron J4005). L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1610 vs 4 MB on the Celeron J4005.

Feature	Celeron G1610	Celeron J4005
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz	2.7 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.6 GHz+30%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	4 MB+100%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	4 MB (total)+1500%
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Goldmont Plus (2017)
PassMark	1,550	1,543
Geekbench 6 Single	456+1%	450
Geekbench 6 Multi	778	800+3%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1610 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron J4005 uses FCBGA1090 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1610 versus DDR4-2400 on the Celeron J4005 — the Celeron J4005 supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1610 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron G1610) vs 6 (Celeron J4005) — the Celeron G1610 offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1610) and SoC (Celeron J4005).

Feature	Celeron G1610	Celeron J4005
Socket	LGA1155	FCBGA1090
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR4-2400+80%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	16+167%	6

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron G1610) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Celeron J4005). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron G1610) and Intel UHD Graphics 600 (Celeron J4005) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1610 targets Budget, Celeron J4005 targets Entry Level Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1610 rivals Pentium G2020; Celeron J4005 rivals Ryzen Embedded R1102G.

Feature	Celeron G1610	Celeron J4005
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)	Intel UHD Graphics 600
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Budget	Entry Level Desktop