A8-7680 vs Celeron G3900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G3900
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 51 Watt
1.35
A8-7680
2018
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
2.24
+65.9%

A8-7680 outperforms Celeron G3900 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22541834
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1815.78
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD A8
Power efficiency2.514.71
Architecture codenameSkylake (2015−2016)Excavator (2017−2018)
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)26 October 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$42$56

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

A8-7680 has 8667% better value for money than Celeron G3900.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed2.8 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.8 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier2838
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm28 nm
Die size150 mm2246 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °C74 °C
Number of transistors1,400 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA1151FM2+
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt45 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G3900 and A8-7680. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G3900 and A8-7680. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size64 GB64 GB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/s14.936 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 510Radeon R7 Series
Max video memory64 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency950 MHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
DVI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096x2304@24Hzno data
Max resolution over eDP4096x2304@60Hzno data
Max resolution over DisplayPort4096x2304@60Hzno data
Max resolution over VGAN/Ano data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron G3900 and A8-7680 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.4no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G3900 and A8-7680.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

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.

Celeron G3900 1.35
A8-7680 2.24
+65.9%

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.

Celeron G3900 2148
A8-7680 3551
+65.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 2.24
Recency 1 September 2015 26 October 2018
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 45 Watt

Celeron G3900 has a 100% more advanced lithography process.

A8-7680, on the other hand, has a 65.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

The A8-7680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G3900 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G3900 and A8-7680, 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 Celeron G3900
Celeron G3900
AMD A8-7680
A8-7680

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.


3.1 225 votes

Rate Celeron G3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 517 votes

Rate A8-7680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G3900 or A8-7680, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.