Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3900XT outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 3900XT is 2773 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT - 55 vs 105 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT
- Performs up to 30% better in Grand Theft Auto V than Celeron G1620 - 137 vs 105 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 24 vs 2 threads
Grand Theft Auto V
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Ryzen 9 3900XT
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
23.655292076344708%
Multi-Core
723
7.208374875373878%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2020 |
| Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Matisse |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 12 |
| 2 | Threads | 24 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 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 |
