Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 7 3800X 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 7 3800X is 2407 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 93% cheaper than Ryzen 7 3800X - €20.16 vs €290.43
- Up to 92% better value when playing Far Cry 5 than Ryzen 7 3800X - €0.11 vs €1.34 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD Ryzen 7 3800X - 55 vs 105 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 7 3800X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
- Performs up to 19% better in Far Cry 5 than Celeron G1620 - 217 vs 182 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 16 vs 2 threads
Far Cry 5
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
182
83%
Value, €/FPS
€0.11/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 14101 minutes ago
Buy for €290.43 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 14101 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 7 3800X |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2019 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 7 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Matisse |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 105 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |