Key Differences
In short — FX-8120 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1620 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing FX-8120 is 418 days older than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of AMD FX-8120
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 37% cheaper than FX-8120 - $49.0 vs $78.02
- Up to 38% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-8120 - $0.29 vs $0.47 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than AMD FX-8120 - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8120 doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Buy for $78.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 214 minutes ago
Buy for $49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 214 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
96.0093896713615%
Multi-Core
723
46.109693877551024%
AMD FX-8120 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
FX | Collection | Celeron |
Zambezi | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
3.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
125 W | TDP | 55 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
15.5x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |