Notebookcheck Logo
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600

► remove from comparison

The Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is a slow clocked entry level processor for cheap laptops. It is based on the old Merom core, but compared to Core 2 Duo processors, the T1700 offers less features of the architecture. For example power saving functions and hardware virtualization is not enabled. According to Intel the CPU does not support Enhanced Speedstep, but there are some versions in laptops that support the automatic downclocking.

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500

► remove from comparison

The Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500 is a slow clocked entry level processor for cheap laptops. It is based on the old Merom core, but compared to Core 2 Duo processors, the T1700 offers less features of the architecture. For example power saving functions and hardware virtualization is not enabled. According to Intel the CPU does not support Enhanced Speedstep, but there are some versions in laptops that support the automatic downclocking.

show full text
ModelIntel Celeron Dual-Core T1600Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreIntel Celeron Dual-Core
CodenameMeromMerom
Series: Celeron Dual-Core Merom
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700 compare1.83 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron Dual-Core T16001.66 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T15001.87 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700 compare1.83 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T16001.66 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron Dual-Core T15001.87 GHz2 / 2
Clock1660 MHz1866 MHz
FSB667533
L2 Cache1 MB512 KB
Cores / Threads2 / 22 / 2
TDP35 Watt35 Watt
Transistors291 Million
65 nm1.075V-1.175V65 nm1.075-1.175V
Die Size143 mm2
max. Temp.100 °C100 °C
SocketPPGA478
FeaturesIntel 64, eXIntel 64, eX
Architecturex86x86
Announced
ManufacturerIntel Celeron Dual-Core T1600

Benchmarks

Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
1 T1500 +
1625 Points (15%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
3000 Points (4%)
2960 Points (4%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
1350 Points (3%)
1400 Points (3%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
36 s (8%)
39 s (8%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
1 T1500 +
91 s (4%)
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
14100 MIPS (7%)
15900 MIPS (8%)
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
10600 MFLOPS (8%)
12000 MFLOPS (9%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 → 100% n=5

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500 → 106% n=5

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2022, 2021
v1.17
log 22. 18:59:05

#0 checking url part for id 479 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 428 +0s ... 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:25 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#4 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.002s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.003s

#6 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.003s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.003s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.003s

#9 composed specs +0s ... 0.003s

#10 did output specs +0s ... 0.003s

#11 getting avg benchmarks for device 479 +0s ... 0.003s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#13 got single benchmarks 479 +0.008s ... 0.011s

#14 getting avg benchmarks for device 428 +0s ... 0.012s

#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#16 got single benchmarks 428 +0.005s ... 0.017s

#17 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.017s

#18 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.017s

#19 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.017s

#20 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.018s

#21 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.018s

#22 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.018s

#23 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.019s

#24 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.019s

#25 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.019s

#26 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.021s

#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.021s

#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.022s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.022s

#30 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.022s

#31 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.023s

#32 return log +0.004s ... 0.026s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)