Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G3930T outperforms the more expensive FX-4300 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G3930T is 1533 days newer than the more expensive FX-4300.
Advantages of AMD FX-4300
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3930T - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3930T
- Performs up to 3% better in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege than FX-4300 - 455 vs 443 FPS
- Up to 19% cheaper than FX-4300 - $39.0 vs $48.02
- Up to 18% better value when playing Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege than FX-4300 - $0.09 vs $0.11 per FPS
- Consumes up to 63% less energy than AMD FX-4300 - 35 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $48.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 71 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
FPS
455
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.09/FPS
100%
Price, $
$39
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $39 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 71 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4300 | vs | Intel Celeron G3930T |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
FX | Collection | Celeron |
Vishera | Codename | Kaby Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 35 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 610 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |