Key Differences
In short — FX-4130 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-4130 is 98 days older than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of AMD FX-4130
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than AMD FX-4130 - 55 vs 125 Watts
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
FX-4130
Desktop • Aug 27th, 2012
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
97.84688995215312%
Multi-Core
723
66.88251618871416%
AMD FX-4130 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 27th, 2012 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| FX | Collection | Celeron |
| Zambezi | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
| 3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 125 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 19.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
