Key Differences
In short — FX-4300 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-4300 is 41 days older than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD FX-4300 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-4300
- Performs up to 0% better in Rocket League than Celeron G1620 - 673 vs 671 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Rocket League
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FX-4300
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD FX-4300 |
|---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| Celeron | Collection | FX |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Vishera |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 4 |
| 2 | Threads | 4 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 95 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
