Buy on Amazon
$49
In Stock
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Celeron G1620 outperforms the more expensive FX-8120 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G1620 is 418 days newer than the more expensive FX-8120.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 37% cheaper than FX-8120 - $49.0 vs $78.02
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than AMD FX-8120 - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8120 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8120
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
The Last of Us Part I
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Intel Celeron G1620 2.7 1 LGA 1155 Processor BX80637G1620
Buy for $49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 167 minutes ago
AMD FX-Series FX 8120 FX8120 FX-8120 3.1 GHz 95W Eight-Core CPU Processor FD8120WMW8KGU Socket AM3+
Buy for $78.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 167 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FX-8120
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
96.0093896713615%
Multi-Core
723
46.109693877551024%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD FX-8120 |
|---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
| Celeron | Collection | FX |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Zambezi |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 8 |
| 2 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.1 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 15.5x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
