Celeron G3930 CPU Review
[amazon fields=”B01MYTY55V” value=”thumb” image_size=”large” image_alt=”Intel BX80677G3930″]
[amazon fields=”B01MYTY55V” value=”button”]
The Celeron G3930 is the most inexpensive CPU from Intel today, with two cores, 2.9 GHz clock rate, TDP of 51 W, and using socket LGA1151. Let’s check how does it perform.
The Celeron G3930 is part of the “Kaby Lake” seventh-gen Core i desktop CPUs from Intel, like the Core i7-7700K, the Core i5-7400, the Core i3-7100, and the Pentium G4600. The Celeron G3930 differs from the more expensive models on the core count (only two), the lack of the Hyper-Threading technology, the smaller L3 cache (2 MiB), and, obviously, the lower clock rate.
So, it is clear that the Celeron G3930 is aimed on computers where performance is not an issue, usually office desktop machines (for web browsing, text typing and spreadsheet calculations), supermarket cashiers, kiosts, etc.
Besides that, we will run some programs and games in order to check if is it a viable option for home using and even for casual gaming.
We compared the Celeron G3930 to the A8-9600, which we tested recently, because they are both some of more inexpensive CPUs today. We also included in this comparison some other models we tested (or re-tested) recently, like the Core i3-7100, the Core i5-7400, the Core i5-8400, and the Ryzen 5 1500X. Keep in mind, however, the CPUs are not competitors to the Celeron G3930.
Figure 1 shows the package of the Celeron G3930.
Figure 1: package
In Figure 2 we have the package contents: a manual, the cooler, the CPU itself, and a case sticker.
Figure 2: package contents
Figure 3 unveils the Celeron G3930 processor.
Figure 3: the Celeron G3930 CPU
The underside of the CPU can be seen in Figure 4.
Figure 4: underside of the Celeron G3930
We used a GeForce GTX 1080, which is a high-end video card, in all tests. We know this video card is not intended to be used with such a value CPU, but we used it in order to be sure there will not be any bottleneck caused by the GPU, so we are measuring the actual performance of each CPU.
In the tables below, we compare the main features of the CPUs included in our review.
| CPU | Cores | HT/SMT | IGP | Internal Clock |
| Celeron G3930 | 2 | No | Yes | 2.9 GHz |
| A8-9600 | 4 | No | Yes | 3.1 GHz |
| Pentium G4600 | 2 | Yes | Yes | 3.6 GHz |
| Core i5-7400 | 4 | No | Yes | 3.0 GHz |
| Core i5-8400 | 6 | No | No | 2.8 GHz |
| Ryzen 3 1200 | 4 | No | No | 3.1 GHz |
| Ryzen 5 1500X | 4 | Yes | No | 3.5 GHz |
| Core i3-7100 | 2 | Yes | Yes | 3.9 GHz |
| CPU | Turbo Clock | Core | Tech. |
| Celeron G3930 | – | Kaby Lake | 14 nm |
| A8-9600 | 3.4 GHz | Bristol Ridge | 28 nm |
| Pentium G4600 | – | Kaby Lake | 14 nm |
| Core i5-7400 | 3.5 GHz | Kaby Lake | 14 nm |
| Core i5-8400 | 4.0 GHz | Coffee Lake | 14 nm |
| Ryzen 3 1200 | 3.4 GHz | Summit Ridge | 14 nm |
| Ryzen 5 1500X | 3.47 | Summit Ridge | 14 nm |
| Core i3-7100 | – | Kaby Lake | 14 nm |
| CPU | TDP | Socket | Price |
| Celeron G3930 | 51W | LGA1151 | USD 60 |
| A8-9600 | 65W | AM4 | USD 70 |
| Pentium G4600 | 51W | LGA1151 | USD 90 |
| Core i5-7400 | 65W | LGA 1151 | USD 190 |
| Core i5-8400 | 65W | LGA1151 | USD 190 |
| Ryzen 3 1200 | 65 | AM4 | USD 110 |
| Ryzen 5 1500X | 65 | AM4 | USD 180 |
| Core i3-7100 | 51 | LGA1151 | USD 120 |
Below you can see the memory configuration for each CPU.
| CPU | L2 Cache | L3 Cache |
| Celeron G3930 | 2 x 256 KiB | 2 MiB |
| A8-9600 | 2 x 1 MiB | – |
| Pentium G4600 | 4 x 256 MiB | 3 MiB |
| Core i5-7400 | 4 x 256 MiB | 6 MiB |
| Core i5-8400 | 6 x 256 KiB | 9 MiB |
| Ryzen 3 1200 | 4 x 512 KiB | 2 x 4 MiB |
| Ryzen 5 1500X | 4x 512 MiB | 2 x 8 MiB |
| Core i3-7100 | 2 x 256 KiB | 3 MiB |
| CPU | Memory Support | Memory Channels |
| Celeron G3930 | Up to DDR4-2400 | 2 |
| A8-9600 | Up to DDR4-2400 | 2 |
| Pentium G4600 | Up to DDR4-2666 | 2 |
| Core i5-7400 | Up to DDR4-2400 | 2 |
| Core i5-8400 | Up to DDR4-2666 | 2 |
| Ryzen 3 1200 | Up to DDR4-2666 | 2 |
| Ryzen 5 1500X | Up to DDR4-2666 | 2 |
| Core i3-7100 | Up to DDR4-2400 | 2 |
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. The only variable was the CPU being tested, besides the motherboard, which had to be replaced to match the different CPUs.
Hardware Configuration
- Motherboard (Coffee Lake): Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming
- Motherboard (Kaby Lake): Gigabyte AORUS Z270X-Gaming 7
- Motherboard (AM4): ASRock X370 Taichi
- Memory: 16 GiB, two DDR4-3200 8 GiB Geil modules configured at 2666 MHz
- Boot drive: Samsung 960 EVO 500 GiB SSD
- Video Card: GeForce GT X 1080
- Video Monitor: Philips 236VL
- Power Supply: Corsair CX600
Operating System Configuration
- Windows 10 Home 64-bit
- NTFS
- Video resolution: 1920 x 1080 60 Hz
Driver Versions
- NVIDIA driver version: 387.92
Software Used
- 3DMark
- Blender
- Cinebench R15
- CPU-Z 1.81
- Handbrake
- PCMark 10
- WinRAR 5.5
- V-Ray Benchmark
- Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
- Dirt Rally
- GTA V
- Hitman
- Rise of the Tomb Raider
Error Margin
We adopted a 4% error margin. Thus, differences below 4% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 4% should be considered as having similar performance.
PCMark 10
PCMark 10 is benchmarking software that uses real-world applications to measure computer performance. We ran the standard test, which included opening applications, web browsing, writing, photo editing, video chat, video conversion, and rendering. Let’s see the results.
On the 3DMark 10 benchmark, the Celeron G3930 was 22% faster than the A8-9600.
3DMark
3DMark is a program with a set of several 3D benchmarks. Time Spy runs a Direct X12 simulation; Fire Strike runs a “heavy” DirectX 11 simulation, and Sky Diver also measures DirectX 11 performance but is aimed at average computers.
On Time Spy, the Celeron G3930 was 5% slower than the A8-9600.
On the Fire Strike benchmark, the Celeron G3930 performed similarly to the A8-9600.
On the Sky Diver benchmark, the Celeron G3930 also was similar to the A8-9600.
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15 is based on the Cinema 4D software. It’s useful to measure the performance gain obtained by the presence of several processing cores while rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is an area where a bigger number of cores helps a lot because usually, this kind of software recognizes several processors (Cinebench R15, for example, can use up to 256 processing cores).
We ran the CPU benchmark, which renders a complex image using all the processing cores (real and virtual) to speed up the process. The result is given as a score.
On Cinebench R15 CPU benchmark, the Celeron G3930 was 19% slower than the A8-9600.
CPU-Z
On its current version, the well-known hardware identification software CPU-Z comes with a benchmarking tool, which measures CPU performance for one
core and for all available cores.
On the single thread benchmark, the Celeron G3930 was 58% faster than the A8-9600.
On the multiple thread benchmark, the Celeron G3930 was 7% slower than the A8-9600.
Handbrake
Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video engine to speed up the conversion process. We converted a 1 GiB, 1920x1080i, 23,738 kbps, .mov video file to a smaller 320×200, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a smartphone. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.
Here the Celeron G3930 was 24% slower than the A8-9600.
WinRAR
Another task where the CPU is very demanded is on file compacting. We ran a test compacting a folder with 8 GiB on 6.813 files to a file, using WinRAR 4.2. The graph below shows the time taken for each test.
In WinRAR, the Celeron G3930 was 20% faster than the A8-9600.
V-Ray Benchmark
V-Ray Benchmark is a tool for measuring image rendering performance using the processor and the graphics card. It renders two images, one using the processor (CPU) and one using the video engine (GPU). We ran the benchmark and compared the CPU time on the graphics below.
On V-Ray, the Celeron G3930 was 12% slower than the A8-9600.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is an action RPG with FPS elements, launched in August 2016, that uses the Dawn engine, being compatible with DirectX 12. We tested it using the benchmark included in the game, with DirectX 12 enabled, Full HD, and graphics options as “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.
On this game, the Celeron G3930 was 41% slower than the A8-9600.
Dirt Rally
Dirt Rally is an off-road racing game released in April 2015, using Ego engine. To measure performance using this game, we ran the performance test included in the game, in 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) resolution and image quality configured as “medium” and MSAA off.
The results below are expressed in frames per second (fps).
In this game, the Celeron G3930 was 39% faster than the A8-9600.
Grand Theft Auto V
Grand Theft Auto V, or simply GTA V, is an open-world action game released for PCs in April of 2015, using the RAGE engine. In order to measure the performance on this game, we ran the performance test of the game, measuring the framerate with FRAPS. We ran GTA V at Full HD, with all image quality set as “normal” and MSAA off.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.
In GTA V, the Celeron G3930 was 21% slower than the A8-9600.
Hitman
Hitman is an action/stealth game, launched in March 2016, that uses a DirectX 12 compatible version of the Glacier 2 engine. To measure performance in this game, we ran the benchmark in it, measuring the framerate with FRAPS. We ran this game in Full HD, with DirectX 12 enabled, with image quality set as “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.
On Hitman, the Celeron G3930 performed similarly to the A8-9600.
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Rise of the Tomb Raider is an adventure/action game launched in January of 2016, based on Foundation engine. In order to measure the performance using this game, we ran the benchmark included on it, using Full HD resolution and graphics quality set to “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.
Also on Rise of the Tomb Raider, the Celeron G3930 was on a technical tie with the A8-9600.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is an open-world RPG, released in May of 2015 and based on the REDengine 3 engine. In order to measure the performance in this game, we walk around at the first scene of the game, measuring the framerate with FRAPS three times. We ran the game at Full HD (1920 x 1080), with image quality set to “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second and represent the arithmetical mean of the three collected results.
In this game, also the Celeron G3930 was similar to the A8-9600.
We ran some quick benchmarks in order to compare the performance of the integrated video present on the A8-9600 to the Pentium G4600, and the Core i3-7100 from Intel. We removed the video card and ran thr
ee 3DMark benchmarks: Fire Strike, Sky Diver, and Cloud Gate.
On Fire Strike, the Celeron G3930 was 59% slower than the A8-9600.
On Sky Diver, the Celeron G3930 was 54% slower than the A8-9600.
On the Cloud Gate, the Celeron G3930 was 34% slower than the A8-9600.
We also ran, using the integrated video, the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (A.K.A. CS: GO), which is a very popular game, launched in August 2012, using Source engine, which is DirectX 9. We benchmarked it playing in “Inferno” map, against bots, in Full HD, and image quality as “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second and represent the arithmetical mean of the three collected results.
On CS: GO, the Celeron G3930 was 37% slower than the A8-9600.
Obviously, no one is expecting a huge processing power in a 60-buck CPU. However, there were some questions: could the Celeron G3930 be a decent choice for a budget home computer, eventually running some games? Is it slower than the AMD A8-9600? Can it be an actual good choice for someone?
About the first question, if can it be used for casual gaming, the answer is “maybe”. Our tests shown that its integrated video is too slow for any recent game, but if you install a “real” video card, you can play some titles. However, we can’t recommend this CPU for gaming, since the Pentium G4600 costs only a few dollars more and performs a lot faster. So, if you have casual gaming in mind, forget about the Celeron G3930 and buy a more powerful processor.
[amazon bestseller=”Celeron” template=”grid” filterby=”price” filter=”available” orderby=”rating” filter_items=”20″ items=”2″]
Compared to the A8-9600, the Celeron G3930 is faster in some tasks, and slower in other ones, so we can say they are in the same level.
But can it be a good option in some case? Yes, if you are interested in building a desktop computer for office tasks, where the budget is more important than the performance, the Celeron G3930 is a good option, even more because you can pair it with an inexpensive H110 motherboard.
Leave a Reply