In Atomfall, the Celeron G6900 is slightly faster than the FX-8320 and it's also a slightly better value for money, as it's only $8 more expensive!
Celeron G6900
- Up to 13% faster in Atomfall – 212 vs 187 FPS
- Up to 13% faster in Atomfall
- Is 9 years and 2 months newer – Jan 04, 2022 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 9 years and 2 months newer
- Up to 4% better value in Atomfall – $0.45 vs $0.47/FPS
- Up to 4% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 46 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
FX-8320
- Up to 8% cheaper – $88.10 vs $95.82
- Up to 8% cheaper
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron G6900 vs FX-8320: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G6900
Jan 4th, 2022
Average FPS
212 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
159 FPS
100%
Price, $
$95.82
91%
Value, $/FPS
$0.45/FPS
100%
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
187 FPS
88%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
88%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.47/FPS
96%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G6900 vs FX-8320 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G6900 vs FX-8320 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G6900
Jan 4th, 2022
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
3.4 GHz
97%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
4800 MHz
100%
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G6900 Jan 4th, 2022 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jan 4th, 2022 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
$52.00 | MSRP | $169.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1700 | Socket | AM3+ |
46W | Power Consumption | 125W |
| Other Features | ||
| 3200 MHz (DDR4), 4800 MHz (DDR5) | RAM | DDR3 |
| UHD Graphics 710 | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
