Celeron G3930 vs Core i5-4690K
Aggregate performance score
i5-4690K outperforms Celeron G3930 by a whopping 153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1430 | 2096 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.78 | 0.70 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 2 June 2014 (10 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $300 | $42 |
| Current price | $47 (0.2x MSRP) | $121 (2.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-4690K has 154% better value for money than Celeron G3930.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 177 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 1150 | 1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 88 Watt | 51 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD 4600 | Intel HD Graphics 610 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
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.
Core i5-4690K outperforms Celeron G3930 by 153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i5-4690K outperforms Celeron G3930 by 153% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-4690K outperforms Celeron G3930 by 112% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-4690K outperforms Celeron G3930 by 249% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.67 | 1.45 |
| Recency | 2 June 2014 | 3 January 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Cost | $300 | $42 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 88 Watt | 51 Watt |
i5-4690K has a 153.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron G3930, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, its recommended price lower by $258, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 72.5% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-4690K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G3930 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-4690K and Celeron G3930, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
