In Control, the Celeron B820 is slightly slower than the Ryzen 5 1600. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron B820
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Ryzen 5 1600
- Up to 1% faster in Control – 247 vs 244 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Control
- Is 4 years and 9 months newer – Apr 11, 2017 vs Jul 01, 2012
- Is 4 years and 9 months newer
Control FPS Calculator
Celeron B820 vs Ryzen 5 1600: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Ryzen 5 1600
Apr 11th, 2017
Average FPS
247 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
162 FPS
100%
Price, $
$58.4
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.23/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron B820 vs Ryzen 5 1600 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron B820 vs Ryzen 5 1600 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron B820
Jul 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
2 MB
12%
Base Frequency
1.7 GHz
53%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Ryzen 5 1600
Apr 11th, 2017
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
16 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron B820 Jul 1st, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Ryzen 5 1600 Apr 11th, 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jul 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 11th, 2017 |
| – | MSRP | $219.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGAG2 (988B) | Socket | AM4 |
35W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
