Key Differences
In short — FX-6200 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-6200 is 280 days older than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than AMD FX-6200 - 55 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Performs up to 0% better in Apex Legends than Celeron G1620 - 255 vs 254 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 6 vs 2 threads
Apex Legends
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
FPS
255
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
Price, $
$42.85
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $42.85 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 65 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD FX-6200 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
Celeron | Collection | FX |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Zambezi |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 3 |
2 | Threads | 6 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
No | Overclockable | Yes |