FPS difference of Celeron 1610 and athlon II x2 260?

James Convento

Honorable
Mar 29, 2013
244
0
10,680
Is there an FPS difference between the two cheap dual core CPU? in case im going to get one of the two what CPU has a good upgrade path?
 
Solution
Celeron 1610 is my choice, as it based on Ivy Bridge. It also has inbuilt GPU, but it will be poor for gaming.
The Athlon although looks quicker, it performs worse due to older technology and has no GPU.

Celeron 1610 + ATI 7750 for a low price gamer that doesn't need all the bells and whistles.
Celeron 1610 is my choice, as it based on Ivy Bridge. It also has inbuilt GPU, but it will be poor for gaming.
The Athlon although looks quicker, it performs worse due to older technology and has no GPU.

Celeron 1610 + ATI 7750 for a low price gamer that doesn't need all the bells and whistles.
 
Solution

James Convento

Honorable
Mar 29, 2013
244
0
10,680
Nicely said. :)
Then I would get the Celeron G1610 and later upgrade to an intel core i3/i5 If I can afford it. :D
Is it okay to ask another question or an opinion? Should I consider having Sata III and USB 3.0?
 
I would not consider any of those as even fit for gaming. Those CPU's are not intended for gaming and they are bad for that purpose.

Can you please tell me what your budget is? I might be able to pick a good build for you for that budget.

PS : Don't refer to the builds in my signature, the prices have changed a bit so they need an update. But please be sure to tell your overall budget.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Of those two listed, the Athlon II has the better upgrade path. Ivy, while a great chip, is a dead end. That Athlon II will work in an AM3+ board which allows for an upgrade to an FX 8350. AMD has stated one more processor gen will be AM3+. Many assume that means steamroller as a Piledriver/Vishera refresh isn't on AMD roadmaps. I wouldn't go anything under an Athlon II X4 640 in AM3+.
 


No, atleast the 4300. The 4100 is based on old and crappy bulldozer architecture which really sucks wheras the 4300, 6300, 8320 and 8350 are based on newer piledriver architecture which is much of an improvement when compared to the bulldozer architecture of the 4100, 6100, 8120 and 8150.

You should get at least a 4300 or a 6300 as it costs just a little more. It is a very good CPU for the price.

I hope this helps.
 


Get it. It is a good CPU. But if you can strech up for the 6300 then that is welcome too. The i3 is not bad by any means though. It is just that the 6300 is better for future games. But get the i3 if you are playing games that have already been released.

If you are planning to play future games more then get the 6300 as it has more cores.

At the end of the day it depends on what games you play.
 

James Convento

Honorable
Mar 29, 2013
244
0
10,680
For now, i just want a pc that can play some old games like half life 2, team fortress 2, amnesia. So will get an Intel Celeron G1610. So, some of you might think it as a stupid decision but, I believe with the right video card, i would be happy. I would just upgrade at the future. :)
 
Go for the AM3+ if you want to upgrade, that is the AMD socket. The LGA 1155 socket is dead now and no new processors would be launched for it at all. Wheras the AM3+ would see many new CPU's in the future. I would have preferred the AM3+ socket more.
 
Anyways the performance difference between the two CPU's is not that much :

31fWbnH.png


So better get the 260 as it has more in it for the future.