Celeron G4900 vs G1620T
Aggregate performance score
Celeron G4900 outperforms Celeron G1620T by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2503 | 2156 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.40 | 2.95 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.61 | 2.78 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Coffee Lake (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 3 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $42 | $42 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron G4900 has 23% better value for money than Celeron G1620T.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G1620T 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G1620T 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | 1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 51 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Security technologies
Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors | Intel UHD Graphics 610 |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.96 | 1.49 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 1.89 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 3 April 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 51 Watt |
Celeron G1620T has 45.7% lower power consumption.
Celeron G4900, on the other hand, has a 55.2% higher aggregate performance score, 145.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron G4900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1620T in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1620T and Celeron G4900, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
