Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 3900X is 2407 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
- Performs up to 17% better in Assassin's Creed Odyssey than Celeron G1610 - 136 vs 116 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 24 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 90% cheaper than Ryzen 9 3900X - $37.0 vs $370.0
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - 55 vs 105 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 9 3900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
FPS
136
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.72/FPS
100%
Price, $
$370
10%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $370 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 15 minutes ago
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 9 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
426
25.162433549911402%
Multi-Core
739
7.436103843831757%
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Jul 7th, 2019 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Ryzen 9 | Collection | Celeron |
Matisse | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
12 | Cores | 2 |
24 | Threads | 2 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
4.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
105 W | TDP | 55 W |
7 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
38.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |