, , , , , ,
zu verknüpfen.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600

► remove from comparison

Der Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 ist ein langsam getakteter Doppelkernprozessor für Einsteiger-Notebooks. Er basiert auf den alten Merom Kern, bietet jedoch im Vergleich zu den Core 2 Duo Prozessoren deutlich weniger Features (weniger Stromsparmechanismen, keine Hardware Virtualisierung, ...). Laut Intel unterstützt die CPU kein Speedstep, jedoch sind Versionen im Handel mit Speedstep gesichtet worden.

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700

► remove from comparison

Der Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700 ist ein langsam getakteter Doppelkernprozessor für Einsteiger-Notebooks. Er basiert auf den alten Merom Kern, bietet jedoch im Vergleich zu den Core 2 Duo Prozessoren deutlich weniger Features (weniger Stromsparmechanismen, keine Hardware Virtualisierung, ...). Laut Intel unterstützt die CPU kein Speedstep, jedoch sind Versionen im Handel mit Speedstep gesichtet worden.

ModelIntel Celeron Dual-Core T1600Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreIntel Celeron Dual-Core
CodenameMeromMerom
Serie: Celeron Dual-Core Merom
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T17001.83 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron Dual-Core T16001.66 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500 compare1.87 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron Dual-Core T17001.83 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T16001.66 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500 compare1.87 GHz2 / 2
Clock1660 MHz1830 MHz
FSB667667
L2 Cache1 MB1 MB
Cores / Threads2 / 22 / 2
TDP35 Watt35 Watt
Transistors291 Million291 Million
65 nm1.075V-1.175V65 nm1.075V-1.175V
Die Size143 mm2143 mm2
max. Temp.100 °C100 °C
SocketPPGA478PPGA478
FeaturesIntel 64, eXIntel 64, eX, SSE3
Architecturex86x86
Announced
ManufacturerIntel Celeron Dual-Core T1600Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700

Benchmarks

Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
1 T1700 +
1750 Points (16%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
3000 Points (4%)
3270 Points (4%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
1350 Points (3%)
1456 Points (3%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
36 s (8%)
33.8 s (7%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
1 T1700 +
75 s (3%)
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
14100 MIPS (7%)
15600 MIPS (7%)
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
10600 MFLOPS (8%)
11800 MFLOPS (9%)

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

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700 → 108% n=5

- Bereich der Benchmarkergebnisse für diese Grafikkarte
- Durchschnittliche Benchmarkergebnisse für diese Grafikkarte
* 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 28. 09:31:07

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

#1 checking url part for id 482 +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 Sun, 23 Jan 2022 12:10:51 +0100 +0s ... 0s

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

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.002s

#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 ... 0.003s

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

#14 getting avg benchmarks for device 482 +0s ... 0.011s

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

#16 got single benchmarks 482 +0.004s ... 0.016s

#17 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.016s

#18 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.016s

#19 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.016s

#20 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.016s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#30 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.019s

#31 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.023s ... 0.042s

#32 return log +0.004s ... 0.046s

Teilen Sie diesen Artikel um uns zu unterstützen. Jeder Link hilft!
> Notebook Test, Laptop Test und News > Benchmarks / Technik > Benchmarks / Technik > Prozessor Vergleich - Head 2 Head
Autor: Redaktion,  8.09.2017 (Update: 19.05.2020)