In Atomfall, the FX-4300 is slightly slower than the Celeron G3930 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $20 more expensive!
FX-4300
No clear advantages
Celeron G3930
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall – 188 vs 186 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall
- Is 4 years and 2 months newer – Jan 03, 2017 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 4 years and 2 months newer
- Up to 41% cheaper – $29.00 vs $49.00
- Up to 41% cheaper
- Up to 42% better value in Atomfall – $0.15 vs $0.26/FPS
- Up to 42% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 51 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-4300 vs Celeron G3930: Comparison of performance and price
FX-4300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
186 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
99%
Price, $
$49
59%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
58%
Celeron G3930
Jan 3rd, 2017
Average FPS
188 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
100%
Price, $
$29
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.15/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-4300 vs Celeron G3930 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-4300 vs Celeron G3930 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-4300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
4 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
78%
Celeron G3930
Jan 3rd, 2017
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
2 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
76%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-4300 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G3930 Jan 3rd, 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
| $122.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 95W | Power Consumption | 51W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 2400 MHz (DDR4) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Intel HD 610 |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
