Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 7 3700X is 2407 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than AMD Ryzen 7 3700X - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 7 3700X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Ryzen 7 3700X
- Performs up to 15% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Celeron G1620 - 192 vs 167 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 16 vs 2 threads
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
FPS
192
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1.85/FPS
100%
Price, £
£354.25
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £354.25 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7376 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620 | vs | Ryzen 7 3700X |
---|---|---|
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 | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |