Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 3400G outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1620 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen 5 3400G is 2407 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 77% cheaper than Ryzen 5 3400G - CA$36.89 vs CA$159.59
- Up to 76% better value when playing DOOM Eternal than Ryzen 5 3400G - CA$0.08 vs CA$0.33 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than AMD Ryzen 5 3400G - 55 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
- Performs up to 6% better in DOOM Eternal than Celeron G1620 - 477 vs 449 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
DOOM Eternal
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Nightmare
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
449
94%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.08/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 85 minutes ago
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
FPS
477
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.33/FPS
24%
Price, CA$
CA$159.59
23%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$159.59 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 86 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Nightmare
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 5 3400G |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2019 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Picasso |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | Radeon RX Vega 11 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |