Key Differences
In short — Celeron G4900 outperforms FX-6200 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G4900 is 2227 days newer than FX-6200.
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G4900 - 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Performs up to 3% better in Battlefield IV than FX-6200 - 378 vs 368 FPS
- Consumes up to 57% less energy than AMD FX-6200 - 54 vs 125 Watts
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
FX-6200
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Celeron G4900
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6200 | vs | Intel Celeron G4900 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 27th, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 3rd, 2018 |
| FX | Collection | Celeron |
| Zambezi | Codename | Coffee Lake |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
3 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.1 GHz |
| 4.1 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 125 W | TDP | 54 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 19.0x | Multiplier | 31.0x |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 610 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
