Core 2 Duo E8400 vs Celeron G1610T
Description
The E8400 is based on Core architecture while the G1610T is based on Ivy Bridge.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the E8400 gets a score of 27.1 k points while the G1610T gets 38.6 k points.
Summarizing, the G1610T is 1.4 times faster than the E8400 . To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the E8400 gets a score of 27.1 k points while the G1610T gets 38.6 k points.
Summarizing, the G1610T is 1.4 times faster than the E8400 . To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.
Specs
CPUID
1067a
306a9
Core
Wolfdale
Ivy Bridge
Base frecuency
3 GHz
2.3 GHz
Socket
LGA 775
LGA 1155
Cores/Threads
2/2
2/2
TDP
65 W
35 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
2x32+2x32 kB
32+32 kB
Cache L2
6144 kB
256 kB
Cache L3
0 kB
2048 kB
Date
January 2008
December 2012
Mean monothread perf.
17.28k points
20.84k points
Mean multithread perf.
27.11k points
38.59k 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
E8400
G1610T
Test#1 (Integers)
2.47k
2.34k (x0.95)
Test#2 (FP)
6.74k
6.54k (x0.97)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
2.87k
3k (x1.05)
Test#1 (Memory)
4.47k
2.74k (x0.61)
TOTAL
16.55k
14.62k (x0.88)
Multithread
E8400
G1610T
Test#1 (Integers)
4.64k
4.67k (x1.01)
Test#2 (FP)
12.36k
12.66k (x1.02)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
4.86k
5.95k (x1.22)
Test#1 (Memory)
1.96k
2.53k (x1.29)
TOTAL
23.82k
25.8k (x1.08)
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
E8400
G1610T
Test#1 (Integers)
3.3k
7.87k (x2.39)
Test#2 (FP)
7.28k
7.14k (x0.98)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
2.88k
3.04k (x1.06)
Test#1 (Memory)
3.83k
2.79k (x0.73)
TOTAL
17.28k
20.84k (x1.21)
Multithread
E8400
G1610T
Test#1 (Integers)
6.3k
15.12k (x2.4)
Test#2 (FP)
13.71k
14.05k (x1.02)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.32k
5.94k (x1.12)
Test#1 (Memory)
1.78k
3.48k (x1.96)
TOTAL
27.11k
38.59k (x1.42)
Performance/W
E8400
G1610T
Test#1 (Integers)
97 points/W
432 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
211 points/W
401 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
82 points/W
170 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
27 points/W
99 points/W
TOTAL
417 points/W
1103 points/W
Performance/GHz
E8400
G1610T
Test#1 (Integers)
1099 points/GHz
3423 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
2426 points/GHz
3102 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
959 points/GHz
1323 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1278 points/GHz
1211 points/GHz
TOTAL
5762 points/GHz
9060 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.
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]
Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]
Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]
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.
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]
Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]
Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]
Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4