AMD A10-5800K vs Intel Celeron G5920 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data for these two processors is sparse and does not include shared test suites. The AMD A10-5800K has results for Geekbench multicore and singlecore, scoring 1102 and 454 respectively. The Intel Celeron G5920 has results for Cinebench R15 multicore (226), Cinebench R20 multicore (945) and singlecore (133), and Cinebench R23 multicore (2252) and singlecore (318). Because no test appears in both processors' benchmark lists, a direct head-to-head comparison using identical workloads is not possible from the database.

What the data does show is how each processor positions against its own peer group. The AMD A10-5800K's average benchmark score is 778, which places it at the 21st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around that figure: the Intel Pentium G4520 scores exactly 778 (0% delta), the AMD Athlon X4 760K scores 777 (0.2% higher), the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 scores 776 (0.3% higher), and the Intel Core i3-7100 scores 781 (0.4% lower). This suggests the A10-5800K sits in a very dense performance band where a few points separate it from several modern and older parts.

The Intel Celeron G5920's average benchmark score is 775, also at the 21st percentile. Its nearest rivals are similarly close: the Intel Core i3-3250T matches it at 775 (0% delta), the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 scores 776 (0.1% higher), the AMD Athlon X4 760K scores 777 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Core i7-3687U scores 773 (0.3% lower). Both processors land in nearly identical territory by average score, with only 3 points separating them overall.

The Geekbench results for the A10-5800K reveal a notable gap between multi-core and single-core performance. The multi-core score of 1102 is more than double the single-core score of 454, which is expected for a quad-core part without simultaneous multithreading. The Celeron G5920's Cinebench results show a similar pattern: the R20 multicore score of 945 is roughly seven times the singlecore score of 133, and the R23 multicore score of 2252 is also about seven times the singlecore score of 318. These ratios indicate that both chips scale well with core count in threaded workloads, though the Celeron's per-core efficiency is comparatively higher given its much lower clock speed.

A practical interpretation: the A10-5800K's average score of 778 is essentially tied with the Celeron G5920's 775. Neither processor has a meaningful aggregate advantage. The biggest wins in this matchup are not between the two chips directly, but in how each compares to its own nearest rivals, where all deltas fall within 0.4%, a margin that is effectively noise in most real-world workloads.

Architecture Differences

The AMD A10-5800K uses the Piledriver architecture, specifically the Trinity codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs four cores and four threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel Celeron G5920 uses the Comet Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel, with two cores and two threads, a base clock of 3.50 GHz, and no boost clock.

The A10-5800K has a 192 KB L1 cache and a 4 MB shared L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The Celeron G5920 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a 2 MB shared L3 cache. This difference matters: the Celeron's L3 cache provides a shared pool that can reduce memory latency, while the A10 relies entirely on its L2.

Memory support diverges significantly. The A10-5800K supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Celeron G5920 supports DDR4 memory, also dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. That is a 42.8% higher theoretical bandwidth for the Intel part, which can benefit memory-sensitive workloads.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The A10-5800K runs PCIe Gen 2, while the Celeron G5920 runs PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes available to the CPU. This means the Intel platform can support faster NVMe drives and modern graphics cards with less bandwidth bottleneck, though the CPU's compute performance may still limit overall system throughput.

Integrated graphics are present on both. The A10-5800K includes a Radeon HD 7660D, while the Celeron G5920 includes UHD 610. Neither is a gaming powerhouse, but the database does not include graphics benchmark scores, so a direct comparison of their iGPU performance is not possible from the recorded data.

The A10-5800K's TDP is 100 W, versus 58 W for the Celeron G5920. The AMD part draws significantly more power, which means it requires a beefier cooling solution and generates more heat. The Celeron's lower TDP makes it suitable for compact or passively cooled systems. The A10-5800K also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Celeron G5920 is locked, so the AMD chip can be overclocked if the motherboard and cooler allow.

Production status differs: the A10-5800K is end-of-life, released on 2012-10-01, while the Celeron G5920 is active, released on 2020-04-29. The A10 is a legacy part, while the Celeron is current. The socket also differs: the A10 uses AMD Socket FM2, and the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1200.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD A10-5800K has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Celeron G5920 has 2 cores and 2 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The A10-5800K has an average benchmark score of 778, and the Celeron G5920 has an average benchmark score of 775. The difference is 3 points, or about 0.4%, which is negligible in practical terms.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 supports DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The AMD A10-5800K supports DDR3 with a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Celeron's memory bandwidth is about 42.8% higher.

Q: Does either processor have an L3 cache?

A: Only the Intel Celeron G5920 has an L3 cache, which is 2 MB shared. The AMD A10-5800K has no L3 cache; its cache consists of a 192 KB L1 and a 4 MB shared L2.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: The AMD A10-5800K has an unlocked multiplier, so it can be overclocked. The Intel Celeron G5920 has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 has a TDP of 58 W, while the AMD A10-5800K has a TDP of 100 W. The Celeron draws 42% less power, making it more suitable for low-power builds.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two processors that deliver nearly identical aggregate performance. The A10-5800K averages 778, and the Celeron G5920 averages 775, with both sitting at the 21st percentile of all CPUs. Neither chip offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in overall benchmark terms.

The real differentiators are architectural and platform-level. The A10-5800K provides twice as many cores and threads, which gives it an edge in heavily threaded workloads, assuming the software can use them. Its unlocked multiplier also makes it an option for overclocking. However, it is an end-of-life part on the FM2 socket, using DDR3 memory and PCIe Gen 2, with a 100 W TDP.

The Celeron G5920 is a current, active product on the LGA 1200 socket, using DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, with a 58 W TDP. It has a 2 MB L3 cache, which the A10 lacks, and its higher memory bandwidth could help in memory-bound tasks. But it has only two cores, and its single-threaded performance, while decent for a Celeron, is limited by the absence of a boost clock.

For a new build today, the Celeron G5920 is the more sensible choice: it is active, efficient, and sits on a modern platform with DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3. For an older system or a project where four physical cores and overclocking are priorities, the A10-5800K can still hold its own, but it is a legacy part with all the platform limitations that come with it.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD A10-5800K | Intel Celeron G5920 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 2 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | None |

| TDP | 100 W | 58 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FM2 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Piledriver (Trinity) | Comet Lake |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | None | 2 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon HD 7660D | UHD 610 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2012-10-01 | 2020-04-29 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A10-5800K wins in scenarios that favor multiple physical cores. Its 4 cores and 4 threads allow it to handle parallel workloads, such as video encoding or compiling, more gracefully than a dual-core part. The unlocked multiplier is another advantage: an overclocked A10-5800K can push beyond its 4.20 GHz boost clock, potentially narrowing the single-thread gap with the Celeron. The A10 also has a larger L2 cache (4 MB shared versus 256 KB per core), which can help in some cache-sensitive tasks.

The Intel Celeron G5920 wins on platform modernity and efficiency. Its 58 W TDP makes it far easier to cool, and its 14 nm process is more advanced than the A10's 32 nm. The Celeron supports DDR4 memory with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, a 42.8% improvement over the A10's DDR3, which benefits memory-intensive applications. The PCIe Gen 3 interface with 16 lanes allows for faster storage and graphics connectivity. The 2 MB L3 cache provides a shared pool that can reduce memory latency. The Celeron's single-thread performance, as seen in its Cinebench R20 singlecore score of 133 and R23 singlecore score of 318, is solid for a dual-core chip and reflects its newer architecture.

For a low-power home server, a basic office PC, or a media center, the Celeron G5920 is the better fit. For a budget overclocking experiment or a legacy FM2 build, the A10-5800K offers more cores and an unlocked multiplier, but the database shows both processors deliver essentially equivalent average performance. The choice comes down to platform priorities: modern efficiency versus older multi-core flexibility.