Key Differences
In short — FX-8120 outperforms Celeron G1820 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-8120 is 781 days older than Celeron G1820.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1820
- Consumes up to 58% less energy than AMD FX-8120 - 53 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8120 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8120
- Performs up to 1% better in Assassin's Creed Valhalla than Celeron G1820 - 167 vs 166 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1820 - 8 vs 2 threads
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Celeron G1820
Desktop • Dec 1st, 2013
FX-8120
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1820 | vs | AMD FX-8120 |
|---|---|---|
Dec 1st, 2013 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
| Celeron | Collection | FX |
| Haswell | Codename | Zambezi |
| Intel Socket 1150 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 8 |
| 2 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.1 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
53 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 15.5x |
Intel HD (Haswell) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
