Celeron G1620 vs i3-3240

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i3-3240
2012
2 cores / 4 threads, 55 Watt
1.46
+49%
Celeron G1620
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 55 Watt
0.98

Core i3-3240 outperforms Celeron G1620 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21632470
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.620.05
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency2.511.69
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date3 September 2012 (12 years ago)3 December 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$75$208

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i3-3240 has 5140% better value for money than Celeron G1620.

Detailed specifications

Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620 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)
Threads42
Base clock speed3.4 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.4 GHz2.7 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/s5 GT/s
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache3 MB (shared)2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm22 nm
Die size94 mm294 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °C65 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1155FCLGA1155
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt55 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVXIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi+-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
FDI+no data

Security technologies

Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Secure Key--
Identity Protection+-
Anti-Theft+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GB32 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s21 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics 2500Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video HD+-
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHz1.05 GHz
InTru 3D+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620.

PCIe version2.02.0

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.

i3-3240 1.46
+49%
Celeron G1620 0.98

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.

i3-3240 2323
+48.9%
Celeron G1620 1560

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.

i3-3240 547
+30.5%
Celeron G1620 419

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.

i3-3240 1119
+52.9%
Celeron G1620 732

3DMark Fire Strike Physics

i3-3240 2630
+2.7%
Celeron G1620 2560

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.46 0.98
Integrated graphics card 0.69 0.77
Recency 3 September 2012 3 December 2012
Threads 4 2

i3-3240 has a 49% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.

Celeron G1620, on the other hand, has 11.6% faster integrated GPU, and an age advantage of 3 months.

The Core i3-3240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1620 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-3240 and Celeron G1620, 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 Core i3-3240
Core i3-3240
Intel Celeron G1620
Celeron G1620

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.


3.7 1220 votes

Rate Core i3-3240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 84 votes

Rate Celeron G1620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i3-3240 or Celeron G1620, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.