Celeron J4005 vs FX-8120
Aggregate performance score
FX-8120 outperforms Celeron J4005 by a whopping 322% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8120 and Celeron J4005 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1307 | 2365 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.74 | 0.37 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Gemini Lake (2019) |
| Release date | 12 October 2011 (12 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
FX-8120 has 641% better value for money than Celeron J4005.
Detailed specifications
FX-8120 and Celeron J4005 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 112 KB |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8120 and Celeron J4005 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 | AM3+ | BGA1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8120 and Celeron J4005. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8120 and Celeron J4005 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8120 and Celeron J4005. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 600 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8120 and Celeron J4005.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
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.
FX-8120 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 322% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
FX-8120 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 321% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
FX-8120 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 23% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
FX-8120 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 169% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.26 | 1.01 |
| Recency | 12 October 2011 | 11 December 2017 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 10 Watt |
FX-8120 has a 321.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron J4005, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 1150% lower power consumption.
The FX-8120 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4005 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8120 and Celeron J4005, 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.
