Celeron G4900 vs Pentium G3220

VS

Aggregate performance score

Pentium G3220
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 54 Watt
1.19
Celeron G4900
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 51 Watt
1.51
+26.9%

Celeron G4900 outperforms Pentium G3220 by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23582153
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.132.95
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency2.082.80
Architecture codenameHaswell (2013−2015)Coffee Lake (2017−2019)
Release date1 September 2013 (11 years ago)3 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$71$42

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron G4900 has 2169% better value for money than Pentium G3220.

Detailed specifications

Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900 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 speed3 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rate5 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data31
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache3 MB (shared)6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size177 mm2126 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C72 °C
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900 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 (Uniprocessor)
Socket11501151
Power consumption (TDP)54 Watt51 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD (Haswell)Intel UHD Graphics 610

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900.

PCIe version3.03.0

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.

Pentium G3220 1.19
Celeron G4900 1.51
+26.9%

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.

Pentium G3220 1895
Celeron G4900 2397
+26.5%

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.

Pentium G3220 530
Celeron G4900 607
+14.5%

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.

Pentium G3220 891
Celeron G4900 1033
+15.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.19 1.51
Recency 1 September 2013 3 April 2018
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 54 Watt 51 Watt

Celeron G4900 has a 26.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 5.9% lower power consumption.

The Celeron G4900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium G3220 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium G3220 and Celeron G4900, 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 Pentium G3220
Pentium G3220
Intel Celeron G4900
Celeron G4900

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.


3.2 358 votes

Rate Pentium G3220 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 116 votes

Rate Celeron G4900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Pentium G3220 or Celeron G4900, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.