Celeron G3900E vs i5-2400
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-2400 outperforms Celeron G3900E by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1754 | 2273 |
| Place by popularity | 39 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.86 | 0.12 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core i5 (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.43 | 3.47 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 9 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 January 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $60 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-2400 has 617% better value for money than Celeron G3900E.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-2400 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 6144 KB (shared) | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 216 mm2 | 98.57 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 1750 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-2400 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | LGA1155 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | LPDDR3-1866 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 2000 | Intel HD Graphics 510 |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
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 | 2.53 | 1.33 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.55 | 1.61 |
| Recency | 9 January 2011 | 2 January 2016 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
i5-2400 has a 90.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron G3900E, on the other hand, has 192.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-2400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G3900E in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-2400 is a desktop processor while Celeron G3900E is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-2400 and Celeron G3900E, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
