Key Differences
In short — FX-4350 outperforms Celeron B815 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-4350 is 484 days newer than Celeron B815.
Advantages of Intel Celeron B815
- Consumes up to 72% less energy than AMD FX-4350 - 35 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4350 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-4350
- Performs up to 1% better in Valheim than Celeron B815 - 190 vs 188 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron B815 - 4 vs 2 threads
Valheim
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Celeron B815
Mobile • Jan 1st, 2012
FX-4350
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron B815 | vs | AMD FX-4350 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 29th, 2013 |
| Celeron | Collection | FX |
| Sandy Bridge | Codename | Vishera |
| Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Mobile | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 4 |
| 2 | Threads | 4 |
| 1.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 125 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
| 16.0x | Multiplier | 19.5x |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
