Key Differences
In short — Core i3-10320 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G3900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G3900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i3-10320 is 1703 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Up to 60% cheaper than Core i3-10320 - €60.9 vs €151.33
- Up to 53% better value when playing Battlefield V than Core i3-10320 - €0.29 vs €0.62 per FPS
- Consumes up to 22% less energy than Intel Core i3-10320 - 51 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10320
- Performs up to 15% better in Battlefield V than Celeron G3900 - 243 vs 211 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Battlefield V
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
211
86%
Value, €/FPS
€0.29/FPS
100%
Price, €
€60.9
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €60.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 17017 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
243
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.62/FPS
46%
Price, €
€151.33
40%
FPS Winner
Buy for €151.33 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 17017 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G3900 | vs | Intel Core i3-10320 |
---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i3 |
Skylake | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
51 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD 510 | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
No | Overclockable | No |