Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 3 3300X outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 3 3300X is 2699 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than AMD Ryzen 3 3300X - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 3 3300X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
- Performs up to 18% better in Ready or Not than Celeron G1620 - 274 vs 232 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
Ready or Not
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Ryzen 3 3300X
Desktop • Apr 24th, 2020
FPS
274
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.4/FPS
100%
Price, £
FPS and Value Winner
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Ryzen 3 3300X
Desktop • Apr 24th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
24.491017964071858%
Multi-Core
723
12.480580010357329%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 3 3300X |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 24th, 2020 |
| Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 3 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Matisse |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 4 |
| 2 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
| 27.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
