Celeron G3900E vs Phenom II X4 820
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 820 outperforms Celeron G3900E by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2274 | 2291 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.10 | 0.18 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.30 | 3.46 |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 2 January 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $90 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Phenom II X4 820 has 1067% better value for money than Celeron G3900E.
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 820 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 | 2.8 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 98.57 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 1750 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 820 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 | AM3 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | LPDDR3-1866 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Intel HD Graphics 510 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 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 | 1.31 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 2 January 2016 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Phenom II X4 820 has a 2.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron G3900E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Phenom II X4 820 and Celeron G3900E.
Note that Phenom II X4 820 is a desktop processor while Celeron G3900E is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 820 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.
