Athlon II M320 vs Celeron G3900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G3900
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 51 Watt
1.35
+187%
Athlon II M320
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.47

Celeron G3900 outperforms Athlon II M320 by a whopping 187% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22412907
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.18no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Athlon II
Power efficiency2.511.27
Architecture codenameSkylake (2015−2016)Caspian (2009)
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)10 September 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$42no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.8 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz2.1 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s3200 MHz
Multiplier28no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm45 nm
Die size150 mm2no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketFCLGA1151Socket S1 (S1g3)
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
PowerNow-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR2
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 510no data
Max video memory64 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency950 MHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
DVI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096x2304@24Hzno data
Max resolution over eDP4096x2304@60Hzno data
Max resolution over DisplayPort4096x2304@60Hzno data
Max resolution over VGAN/Ano data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.4no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron G3900 1.35
+187%
Athlon II M320 0.47

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron G3900 2144
+186%
Athlon II M320 749

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron G3900 586
+222%
Athlon II M320 182

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron G3900 1002
+208%
Athlon II M320 325

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 0.47
Recency 1 September 2015 10 September 2009
Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 35 Watt

Celeron G3900 has a 187.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon II M320, on the other hand, has 45.7% lower power consumption.

The Celeron G3900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II M320 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron G3900 is a desktop processor while Athlon II M320 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G3900 and Athlon II M320, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron G3900
Celeron G3900
AMD Athlon II M320
Athlon II M320

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 223 votes

Rate Celeron G3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 32 votes

Rate Athlon II M320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G3900 or Athlon II M320, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.