Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3900XT outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 3900XT is 2773 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT - 55 vs 105 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT
- Performs up to 27% better in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 than Celeron G1620 - 113 vs 89 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 24 vs 2 threads
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $325 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 76383 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
23.655292076344708%
Multi-Core
723
7.208374875373878%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Matisse |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 12 |
2 | Threads | 24 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 105 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |