Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G3900 outperforms the more expensive FX-8320 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G3900 is 1043 days newer than the more expensive FX-8320.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Performs up to 2% better in Assassin's Creed Odyssey than FX-8320 - 118 vs 116 FPS
- Up to 92% cheaper than FX-8320 - CA$21.99 vs CA$263.71
- Up to 92% better value when playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey than FX-8320 - CA$0.19 vs CA$2.27 per FPS
- Consumes up to 59% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 51 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
118
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.19/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$21.99
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for CA$21.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 158 minutes ago
Buy for CA$263.71 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 158 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G3900 | vs | AMD FX-8320 |
---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
Celeron | Collection | FX |
Skylake | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
51 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 17.5x |
Intel HD 510 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |