Key Differences
In short — FX-8120 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-8120 is 418 days older than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of AMD FX-8120
- Performs up to 1% better in World of Warcraft than Celeron G1620 - 154 vs 153 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than AMD FX-8120 - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8120 doesn't have integrated graphics
World of Warcraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
153
99%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.24/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 6 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8120 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
FX | Collection | Celeron |
Zambezi | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
3.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
125 W | TDP | 55 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
15.5x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |