| | | | | | |

Celeron G1610T vs Core 2 Duo E7400


Description
The G1610T is based on Ivy Bridge architecture while the E7400 is based on Core.

Using the multithread performance as a reference, the G1610T gets a score of 38.6 k points while the E7400 gets 25.7 k points.

Summarizing, the G1610T is 1.5 times faster than the E7400 . To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.

Specs
CPUID
306a9
1067a
Core
Ivy Bridge
Wolfdale
Architecture
Base frecuency
2.3 GHz
2.8 GHz
Socket
LGA 1155
LGA 775
Cores/Threads
2/2
2/2
TDP
35 W
65 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
32+32 kB
32+32 kB
Cache L2
256 kB
3072 kB
Cache L3
2048 kB
0 kB
Date
December 2012
October 2008
Mean monothread perf.
20.84k points
14.31k points
Mean multithread perf.
38.59k points
25.71k points

Non-optimized benchmark
The benchmark in Mode 0 (FPU) measures cpu performance with non-optimized software. It uses the basic µinstructions from the i386 architecture with the i387 floating point unit. This mode is compatible with all CPUs so it's practical to compare very different CPUs
Monothread
G1610T
E7400
Test#1 (Integers)
2.34k
2.54k (x1.08)
Test#2 (FP)
6.54k
6.56k (x1)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
3k
2.73k (x0.91)
Test#1 (Memory)
2.74k
1.83k (x0.67)
TOTAL
14.62k
13.66k (x0.93)

Multithread

G1610T

E7400
Test#1 (Integers)
4.67k
5.08k (x1.09)
Test#2 (FP)
12.66k
13.07k (x1.03)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.95k
5.52k (x0.93)
Test#1 (Memory)
2.53k
1.62k (x0.64)
TOTAL
25.8k
25.29k (x0.98)

SSE3 optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode I (SSE) is optimized for the use of SIMD instructions with 128 bits register and the SSE set up to version 3. Nearly every modern CPU has support for this mode.
Monothread
G1610T
E7400
Test#1 (Integers)
7.87k
3.19k (x0.4)
Test#2 (FP)
7.14k
7.02k (x0.98)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
3.04k
2.71k (x0.89)
Test#1 (Memory)
2.79k
1.39k (x0.5)
TOTAL
20.84k
14.31k (x0.69)

Multithread

G1610T

E7400
Test#1 (Integers)
15.12k
6.02k (x0.4)
Test#2 (FP)
14.05k
13.23k (x0.94)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.94k
5.12k (x0.86)
Test#1 (Memory)
3.48k
1.34k (x0.39)
TOTAL
38.59k
25.71k (x0.67)

Performance/W
G1610T
E7400
Test#1 (Integers)
432 points/W
93 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
401 points/W
204 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
170 points/W
79 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
99 points/W
21 points/W
TOTAL
1103 points/W
396 points/W

Performance/GHz
G1610T
E7400
Test#1 (Integers)
3423 points/GHz
1139 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
3102 points/GHz
2507 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1323 points/GHz
969 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1211 points/GHz
496 points/GHz
TOTAL
9060 points/GHz
5111 points/GHz

Monothread performance graph
Monothread performance graphics gives the performance vs time. They are useful to measure the time it takes to the CPU to reach the maximum performance.

Usually, CPU's performance will be steady during these tests but if it has a slow frequency strategy, the first samples will show a lower score.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Multithread performance graph
Multithread graphs measure the performance against a heavy load during certain time.

If CPU's TDP doesn't limit the frequency and the machine is properly cooled, performance should remain steady vs time. Otherwise, the performance score will oscillate or decrease over time.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4