Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Athlon 5600B Dual Core Celeron G465 1.9GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 502% 654%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 710% 914%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 483% 630%
FIFA 21 463% 605%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 582% 754%
Watch Dogs Legion 710% 914%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 836% 1072%
Horizon: Zero Dawn 582% 754%
Grand Theft Auto VI 889% 1138%
Genshin Impact 356% 471%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD Athlon 5600B Dual Core is very slightly better than the Intel Celeron G465 1.9GHz when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The Celeron G465 1.9GHz was released less than a year after the Athlon 5600B Dual, and so they are likely to have similar levels of support, and similarly optimized performance when running the latest games.

The Athlon 5600B Dual has 1 more core than the Celeron G465 1.9GHz. However, while the Athlon 5600B Dual will probably perform better than the Celeron G465 1.9GHz, both CPUs are likely to struggle with the latest games, and will almost certainly bottleneck high-end graphics cards. This should not affect games that are a few years old, and even the latest games should at least be playable on very low settings, as only recently have game developers begun to harness the power of multiple cores.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Athlon 5600B Dual and Celeron G465 1.9GHz are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Athlon 5600B Dual has a 1 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is probably a good indicator that the Athlon 5600B Dual is superior.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The Athlon 5600B Dual has a 256 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron G465 1.9GHz, and although the Athlon 5600B Dual does not appear to have an L3 cache, its larger L2 cache means that it wins out in this area.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Celeron G465 1.9GHz has a 30 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Athlon 5600B Dual, and was created with a 33 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Celeron G465 1.9GHz will consume significantly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill significantly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameBrisbaneSandy Bridge
MoBo SocketSocket AM2+LGA 1155/Socket H2
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date15 Aug 200802 Sep 2012
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores2vs1
CPU Threads2vs-
Clock Speed2.9 GHzvs1.9 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP65 Wvs35 W
Lithography65 nmvs32 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs-
Voltage Range1.10-1.35V KBvs-
Max Temperature72°Cvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size128 KBvs64 KB
L1 Cache Count2vs-
L2 Cache Size512 KBvs256 KB
L2 Cache Count2vs-
L2 Cache Speed-vs-
L3 Cache Size-vs1.5 MB
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphics
Base GPU Frequency-vs-
Max GPU Frequency-vs-
DirectX-vs-
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewOn April 21, 2005, less than a week after the release of Venice and San Diego, AMD announced its next addition to the Athlon 64 line, the Athlon 64 X2. Released on May 31, 2005, it also initially had two different core revisions available to the public, Manchester and Toledo, the only appreciable difference between them being the amount of L2 cache. Both were released only for Socket 939. The Athlon 64 X2 was received very well by reviewers and the general public, with a general consensus emerging that AMD's implementation of multi-core was superior to that of the competing Pentium D. Some felt initially that the X2 would cause market confusion with regard to price points since the new processor was targeted at the same enthusiast, US$350 and above market already occupied by AMD's existing socket 939 Athlon 64s. AMD's official breakdown of the chips placed the Athlon X2 aimed at a segment they called the prosumer, along with digital media fans. The Athlon 64 was targeted at the mainstream consumer, and the Athlon FX at gamers.Sandy Bridge is the codename for a microarchitecture developed by Intel beginning in 2005 for central processing units in computers to replace the Nehalem microarchitecture. Intel demonstrated a Sandy Bridge processor in 2009, and released first products based on the architecture in January 2011 under the Core brand.