AMD A6-9400 vs Intel Celeron G5920 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD A6-9400 records an average benchmark score of 794, while the Intel Celeron G5920 sits at 775. The AMD part leads by roughly 2.4% in this aggregate metric.

Q: How does the Celeron G5920 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Celeron's average score of 775 is exactly matched by the Intel Core i3-3250T (0% delta). It trails the Pentium Silver J5005 by 0.1% and the Athlon X4 760K by 0.2%, while edging the Core i7-3687U by 0.3%.

Q: What are the single-core performance differences in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD A6-9400 scores 326 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 2.5% ahead of the Celeron G5920's 318. This is the same 2.5% delta seen in the multi-core R23 test.

Q: Do both processors support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 with dual-channel memory buses. However, the Intel Celeron G5920 has a higher memory bandwidth at 42.7 GB/s compared to the AMD A6-9400's 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has the larger die size and transistor count?

A: The AMD A6-9400 is built on a 28 nm process with 3,100 million transistors and a 250 mm² die. The Intel Celeron G5920 uses a 14 nm process, but its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Q: What is the production status of both chips?

A: Both the Intel Celeron G5920 and the AMD A6-9400 are listed as Active in production. The AMD part was released on March 15, 2019, while the Intel part followed on April 29, 2020.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Celeron G5920 and AMD A6-9400 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Celeron is a Comet Lake part built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the A6-9400 is a Bristol Ridge Excavator chip fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm node. This process gap is significant: the Intel silicon is denser and more power-efficient per transistor, whereas AMD's older node requires more area and power for similar work.

The core configurations are superficially similar, both offering 2 cores and 2 threads. But the cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Celeron uses a per-core design: 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, plus a shared 2 MB L3 cache. The A6-9400 instead uses 160 KB total L1 and 1 MB shared L2, with no L3 cache at all. This means the Intel part has more total cache hierarchy depth, which typically helps in workloads with repeated data access.

Clock speeds tell another story. The Celeron has a fixed 3.50 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The A6-9400 starts at 3.40 GHz but can boost up to 3.70 GHz. In single-threaded bursts, the AMD chip has a 200 MHz advantage, though the Intel part's newer architecture may offset some of that.

The integrated graphics differ as well. Intel pairs the Celeron with UHD 610, while AMD uses Radeon R5. Neither is a gaming powerhouse, but the AMD solution historically offers more shader performance per clock. PCIe connectivity also varies: the Celeron provides 16 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the A6-9400 offers only 8 Gen 3 lanes.

Power envelopes are close but not identical. The Celeron is rated at 58W TDP, the A6-9400 at 65W. The AMD chip consumes more power despite being slower in aggregate benchmarks, a direct consequence of its older 28 nm process. The Celeron's socket is Intel Socket 1200, while the A6-9400 uses AMD Socket AM4, meaning platform choice locks in one or the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep: the AMD A6-9400 wins all five Cinebench comparisons. The margins are consistent, hovering near 2.5% across every test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the A6-9400 scores 232 against the Celeron's 226, a 2.6% advantage. This is the largest relative gap in the dataset. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD part scores 969 versus 945, a 2.5% lead. The R20 single-core test shows 136 versus 133, again a 2.2% margin for AMD.

Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern. Multi-core results are 2309 for AMD and 2252 for Intel, a 2.5% difference. Single-core shows 326 versus 318, also 2.5%. The consistency of these deltas suggests the A6-9400's boost clock of 3.70 GHz provides a steady, small advantage across all rendering workloads.

Notably, the Celeron G5920 does not win a single benchmark in this head-to-head set. Its rival list shows it trading blows with older Intel and AMD parts, but in direct comparison, the A6-9400 comes out ahead every time. The largest single-core gap is small (2.2%), so real-world differences would be modest, but the direction is unambiguous.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Celeron G5920 | AMD A6-9400 |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 58W | 65W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Excavator |

| Codename | Comet Lake | Bristol Ridge |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 160 KB total |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB per core | 1 MB shared |

| L3 Cache | 2 MB shared | None |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 3, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD 610 | Radeon R5 |

| Release Date | 2020-04-29 | 2019-03-15 |

| Part Number | SRH42 | AD9400AGABBOX |

Both chips share the same core/thread count (2/2), DDR4 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, non-ECC memory, desktop market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A6-9400 wins every measured benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2309 puts it 2.5% ahead of the Celeron's 2252. In single-core work, the AMD chip leads by the same margin. This is a consistent, if narrow, victory across the board.

The Celeron G5920's advantages lie outside raw compute benchmarks. It has a higher memory bandwidth rating (42.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s), which could benefit workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive. It also offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus the AMD part's 8, meaning more direct CPU-to-GPU or CPU-to-NVMe connectivity for expansion cards. The Intel chip's 14 nm process gives it a lower TDP at 58W versus 65W, so it will run cooler or allow quieter cooling solutions in constrained cases.

For the AMD part, the wins are purely in rendering performance. All five Cinebench tests go to the A6-9400. The presence of a boost clock up to 3.70 GHz gives it a clock-speed advantage that the locked 3.50 GHz Celeron cannot counter. The Radeon R5 integrated graphics may also offer better iGPU performance than UHD 610, though no direct benchmark in this dataset confirms that.

Users needing maximum PCIe lane count for a discrete GPU and multiple NVMe drives would prefer the Celeron's 16 lanes. Users prioritizing every bit of CPU rendering throughput, even at the cost of power and older process technology, would take the A6-9400.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD A6-9400 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. Its 2.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2309 versus 2252) and identical 2.5% lead in single-core (326 versus 318) reflect a small but consistent advantage. The AMD chip's boost clock of 3.70 GHz, despite the older 28 nm Excavator architecture, beats the Celeron's fixed 3.50 GHz in all measured workloads.

The Intel Celeron G5920 is not without merit. It matches its nearest rivals almost exactly, with an average score of 775 against the Core i3-3250T's 775 and the Pentium Silver J5005's 776. Its 14 nm process delivers lower power consumption at 58W TDP, and its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes double the AMD part's connectivity. The higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s also gives it an edge in memory-heavy scenarios.

But for pure CPU compute, the AMD A6-9400 wins. Its average benchmark score of 794 places it among parts like the A10-5800B (794) and A10-7850K (796), while the Celeron sits alongside older low-power chips. The A6-9400's 2 MB shared L2 and 160 KB L1, combined with a 3.70 GHz boost clock, are sufficient to edge out the Celeron's newer architecture and larger L3 cache.

Buyers should choose based on platform needs. If the system requires AM4 compatibility, the A6-9400 is the obvious pick. If the system requires Socket 1200, the Celeron is the only option. Between the two, the AMD part is faster in all recorded benchmarks, making it the stronger choice for rendering workloads. The Celeron compensates with better memory bandwidth and PCIe expansion, but it cannot match the A6-9400's compute scores. For anyone selecting purely on benchmark data, the AMD A6-9400 is the winner.