Key Differences
In short — Celeron G1840 outperforms the cheaper FX-4300 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-4300 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Celeron G1840 is 555 days newer than the cheaper FX-4300.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1840
- Performs up to 1% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than FX-4300 - 191 vs 190 FPS
- Consumes up to 44% less energy than AMD FX-4300 - 53 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-4300
- Up to 66% cheaper than Celeron G1840 - €24.38 vs €72.66
- Up to 66% better value when playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Celeron G1840 - €0.13 vs €0.38 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1840 - 4 vs 2 threads
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
FPS
191
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.38/FPS
34.21052631578947%
Price, €
€72.66
33%
FPS Winner
Buy for €72.66 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 43 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
190
99.47643979057592%
Value, €/FPS
€0.13/FPS
100%
Price, €
€24.38
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €24.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 43 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1840 | vs | AMD FX-4300 |
---|---|---|
May 1st, 2014 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
Celeron | Collection | FX |
Haswell | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 1150 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 4 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
53 W | TDP | 95 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
Intel HD (Haswell) | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |