In Atomfall, the Celeron G3900 is slightly faster than the FX-8150 and it's also a better value for money, as it's $7 cheaper!
Celeron G3900
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall – 190 vs 189 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall
- Is 3 years and 10 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Oct 12, 2011
- Is 3 years and 10 months newer
- Up to 14% cheaper – $44.04 vs $51.29
- Up to 14% cheaper
- Up to 15% better value in Atomfall – $0.23 vs $0.27/FPS
- Up to 15% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 59% less energy – 51 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 59% less energy
FX-8150
No clear advantages
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron G3900 vs FX-8150: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
190 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
143 FPS
100%
Price, $
$44.04
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.23/FPS
100%
FX-8150
Oct 12th, 2011
Average FPS
189 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
99%
Price, $
$51.29
85%
Value, $/FPS
$0.27/FPS
85%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G3900 vs FX-8150 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G3900 vs FX-8150 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
78%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
FX-8150
Oct 12th, 2011
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G3900 Sep 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-8150 Oct 12th, 2011 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | AM3+ |
51W | Power Consumption | 125W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2133 MHz (DDR3), 2133 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
| Intel HD 510 | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
