Celeron J3160 vs Z-60

Celeron J3160 vs Z-60 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J3160

4 / 4

1,250

+0.1%

1,249

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

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.

Celeron J3160 vs Z-60 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 J3160 vs Z-60: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J3160

2016

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌20% higher power demand at 6W vs 5W.

Z-60

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 5W instead of 6W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,249 vs 1,250).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3160 better than Z-60?

Yes. Celeron J3160 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% 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, Celeron J3160 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Celeron J3160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron J3160 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 4 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 J3160 vs Z-60 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J3160

The Celeron J3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $107.

Z-60

The Z-60 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 9 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Hondo (2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 1,249 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J3160 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Z-60 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.24 GHz on the Celeron J3160 versus 1 GHz on the Z-60 — a 76.5% clock advantage for the Celeron J3160. The Celeron J3160 uses the Airmont (2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Z-60 uses Hondo (2012) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3160 scores 1,250 against the Z-60's 1,249 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron J3160. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron J3160	Z-60
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.24 GHz+124%	1 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB
Process	14 nm-65%	40 nm
Architecture	Airmont (2016)	Hondo (2012)
PassMark	1,250	1,249
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	658
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	650	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J3160 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Z-60 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron J3160 versus DDR3-1066 on the Z-60 — the Celeron J3160 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron J3160) vs 1 (Z-60).

Feature	Celeron J3160	Z-60
Socket	FCBGA1170	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+50%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron J3160) vs AMD-V (Z-60). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics 400 (Celeron J3160) and Radeon HD 6250 (Z-60) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3160 targets Low Power, Z-60 targets Tablet. Direct competitor: Celeron J3160 rivals Pentium J3710; Z-60 rivals Core i3-2310M.