Core 2 Duo T7200 vs Celeron G1630

Core 2 Duo T7200

2 Cores2 Thrd4 WWMax: 2 GHz2006

Celeron G1630

2 Cores2 Thrd55 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2013

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core 2 Duo T7200

2 / 2

1,717

+0.6%

1,707

0.0%

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 Core 2 Duo T7200 is positioned at rank 29 and the Celeron G1630 is on rank 495, so the Core 2 Duo T7200 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 Core 2 Duo T7200

#17

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

171%

#18

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

168%

#19

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

155%

#20

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

154%

#21

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

152%

#23

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

147%

#24

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

141%

#25

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

141%

#26

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

137%

#29

Core 2 Duo T7200

MSRP: $286|Avg: $6

100%

#30

Core i5-3230M

MSRP: $225|Avg: $13

100%

#31

Atom D525

MSRP: $63|Avg: N/A

99%

#32

Atom x7835RE

MSRP: $127|Avg: N/A

99%

#33

Core 2 Duo P8400

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

97%

#38

Core 2 Duo T8100

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

90%

#39

Atom 330

MSRP: $43|Avg: $30

89%

#43

Core 2 Duo SU7300

MSRP: $289|Avg: N/A

87%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1630

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

7670%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

7248%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

5262%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

1585%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

1256%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

1099%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

629%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

621%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

565%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

565%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

559%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

544%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

536%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

534%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

529%

#256

Ryzen 7 1700X

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

96%

#371

Core 5 120UL

MSRP: $277|Avg: $270

96%

#372

Ryzen Embedded V3C14

MSRP: $305|Avg: $305

96%

#373

Core i7-9700T

MSRP: $323|Avg: $276

95%

#495

Celeron G1630

MSRP: $42|Avg: $5

100%

#499

Pentium G4400

MSRP: $64|Avg: $85

98%

#501

Core i5-8600K

MSRP: $257|Avg: $100

97%

#506

Athlon II X4 651

MSRP: $92|Avg: $92

96%

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 Celeron G1630 (2013) utilizes 22 nm technology and DDR3, providing a fundamental performance advantage.

Insight	Core 2 Duo T7200	Celeron G1630
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($6)	✅ More affordable ($5)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Core 2 Duo T7200 (2006) relies on 65 nm technology and older memory, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.

Insight	Core 2 Duo T7200	Celeron G1630
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+19%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($6)	✅ More affordable ($5)

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.

Core 2 Duo T7200 Benchmark Check

Celeron G1630 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core 2 Duo T7200 and Celeron G1630

Core 2 Duo T7200

The Core 2 Duo T7200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 28 July 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 34 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,717 points. Launch price was $286.

Celeron G1630

The Celeron G1630 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 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: 1,707 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core 2 Duo T7200 and Celeron G1630 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T7200 versus 2.8 GHz on the Celeron G1630 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Celeron G1630 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core 2 Duo T7200 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron G1630 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo T7200 scores 1,717 against the Celeron G1630's 1,707 — a 0.6% lead for the Core 2 Duo T7200. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Core 2 Duo T7200 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1630.

Feature	Core 2 Duo T7200	Celeron G1630
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.8 GHz+40%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.8 GHz+40%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4 MB+1500%	256 kB (per core)
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,717	1,707
Geekbench 6 Single	—	386
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	635

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Duo T7200 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron G1630 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Core 2 Duo T7200 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1630 — the Celeron G1630 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Chipset compatibility: GM965,PM965 (Core 2 Duo T7200) and H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1630).

Feature	Core 2 Duo T7200	Celeron G1630
Socket	PGA478	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3-1333+50%
Max RAM Capacity	—	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	✅
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Celeron G1630 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Core 2 Duo T7200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Duo T7200 targets Budget, Celeron G1630 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core 2 Duo T7200 rivals Athlon 64 X2 TK-42; Celeron G1630 rivals Pentium G2030.

Feature	Core 2 Duo T7200	Celeron G1630
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

The Core 2 Duo T7200 launched at $286 MSRP, while the Celeron G1630 debuted at $42. At current prices ($6 vs $5), the Celeron G1630 is $1 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Duo T7200 delivers 286.2 pts/$ vs 341.4 pts/$ for the Celeron G1630 — making the Celeron G1630 the 17.6% better value option.