Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 3900X is 2407 days newer than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - 55 vs 105 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 9 3900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
- Performs up to 177% better in Immortals of Aveum than Celeron G1610 - 61 vs 22 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 24 vs 2 threads
Immortals of Aveum
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Ryzen 9 3900X
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
426
25.162433549911402%
Multi-Core
739
7.436103843831757%
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 3900X |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2019 |
| Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Matisse |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 12 |
| 2 | Threads | 24 |
| 2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 105 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
| 26.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
