Celeron J3160 vs G3900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G3900
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 51 Watt
1.35
+68.8%
Celeron J3160
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
0.80

Celeron G3900 outperforms Celeron J3160 by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22562620
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.180.07
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency2.5112.62
Architecture codenameSkylake (2015−2016)Airmont (2016)
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)15 January 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$42$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron G3900 has 157% better value for money than Celeron J3160.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160 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 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz2.24 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0IDI
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier28no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2 MB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size150 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1151FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160. 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)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring++
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Key++
Identity Protection-+
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard--
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160 are enumerated here.

VT-d+-
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR3L-1600
Maximum memory size64 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 510no data
Max video memory64 GB8 GB
Quick Sync Video++
Clear Video++
Clear Video HD++
Graphics max frequency950 MHz700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12
InTru 3D+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33
eDP++
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
DVI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160 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 Celeron J3160 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12+
OpenGL4.4+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes164
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data5
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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
+68.8%
Celeron J3160 0.80

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
+69%
Celeron J3160 1271

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.

Celeron G3900 584
+240%
Celeron J3160 172

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.

Celeron G3900 999
+97.8%
Celeron J3160 505

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 0.80
Recency 1 September 2015 15 January 2016
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 6 Watt

Celeron G3900 has a 68.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron J3160, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 750% lower power consumption.

The Celeron G3900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3160 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G3900 and Celeron J3160, 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
Intel Celeron J3160
Celeron J3160

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
3.1 55 votes

Rate Celeron J3160 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G3900 or Celeron J3160, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.