Key Differences
In short — Celeron G4900 outperforms FX-8350 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G4900 is 1988 days newer than FX-8350.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Performs up to 2% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than FX-8350 - 155 vs 152 FPS
- Consumes up to 57% less energy than AMD FX-8350 - 54 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8350 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8350
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G4900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G4900
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
FX-8350
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G4900 | vs | AMD FX-8350 |
|---|---|---|
Apr 3rd, 2018 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| Celeron | Collection | FX |
| Coffee Lake | Codename | Vishera |
| Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 8 |
| 2 | Threads | 8 |
| 3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
54 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 20.0x |
UHD Graphics 610 | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
