Celeron G3900E vs Phenom II X4 820

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X4 820
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.34
+3.1%
Celeron G3900E
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
1.30

Phenom II X4 820 outperforms Celeron G3900E by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22572276
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.100.12
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.313.45
Architecture codenameDeneb (2009−2011)Skylake (2015−2016)
Release date1 September 2009 (15 years ago)2 January 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$90$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Phenom II X4 820 has 1650% better value for money than Celeron G3900E.

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.8 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache512 KB (per core)512 KB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)2 MB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size258 mm298.57 mm2
Number of transistors758 million1750 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E 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)
SocketAM3no data
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3LPDDR3-1866
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data34.134 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)Intel HD Graphics 510

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

Phenom II X4 820 1.34
+3.1%
Celeron G3900E 1.30

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.

Phenom II X4 820 2081
+2.3%
Celeron G3900E 2034

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.34 1.30
Recency 1 September 2009 2 January 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Phenom II X4 820 has a 3.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron G3900E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E.

Note that Phenom II X4 820 is a desktop processor while Celeron G3900E is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E, 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.


AMD Phenom II X4 820
Phenom II X4 820
Intel Celeron G3900E
Celeron G3900E

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.


4.5 58 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 820 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 1 vote

Rate Celeron G3900E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom II X4 820 or Celeron G3900E, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.