Key Differences
In short — Celeron G6900 outperforms FX-4350 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G6900 is 3172 days newer than FX-4350.
Advantages of AMD FX-4350
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G6900 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G6900
- Performs up to 22% better in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor than FX-4350 - 132 vs 108 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4350 doesn't have integrated graphics
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
FX-4350
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Celeron G6900
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4350 | vs | Intel Celeron G6900 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 29th, 2013 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
| FX | Collection | Celeron |
| Vishera | Codename | Alder Lake |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
4.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
| 4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 125 W | TDP | Not Available |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
| 19.5x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
