AMD Athlon X4 760K vs Intel Celeron G5920 Comparison

The AMD Athlon X4 760K and the Intel Celeron G5920 occupy similar positions in the database’s aggregate rankings, yet they approach that standing from entirely different directions. The Athlon X4 760K, a quad-core part from the Richland generation, posts an average benchmark score of 777, while the Celeron G5920, a dual-core Comet Lake chip, records 775. That two-point gap places them within 0.3% of each other overall, but the similarity ends there. The recorded data shows a split personality: the older AMD part leans on four physical cores, while the newer Intel part relies on higher per-core efficiency and a much newer process node. Neither processor dominates the other across every metric, and the benchmark results reveal distinct strengths that matter depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not list direct head-to-head test results for these two processors. Instead, the comparison must be built from their individual benchmark submissions and the aggregate averages of their nearest rivals. The Athlon X4 760K carries two Geekbench scores: 1098 in multi-core and 455 in single-core. The Celeron G5920 has no Geekbench entries in the database, but it does have Cinebench scores across multiple versions, including 226 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 945 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 133 in Cinebench R20 single-core, 2252 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and 318 in Cinebench R23 single-core. Because the benchmark suites differ, a direct apples-to-apples comparison is impossible. What can be compared is the aggregate average and the percentile standing.

The aggregate scores place the Athlon X4 760K at 777, which is 0.3% ahead of the Celeron G5920’s 775. That delta is within measurement noise, but the database’s nearest rival list for each part tells a more granular story. For the Athlon X4 760K, the closest rival is the Intel Pentium G4520 at 778 (a -0.1% delta), followed by the AMD A10-5800K at 778 (-0.1%), then the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 at 776 (0.1%), and finally the Intel Celeron G5920 at 775 (0.3%). For the Celeron G5920, the nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-3250T at 775 (0% delta), then the Pentium Silver J5005 at 776 (-0.1%), the Athlon X4 760K at 777 (-0.2%), and the Core i7-3687U at 773 (0.3%). In both lists, the two parts are effectively tied, with the Athlon holding a marginal 0.2% advantage when the Celeron’s list is viewed from the Intel side.

The biggest wins each way are not visible in a single benchmark because the test sets do not overlap. The Athlon X4 760K’s Geekbench multi-core score of 1098 is far higher than any single-core figure, suggesting that its four cores provide a substantial throughput advantage in threaded applications. The Celeron G5920’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 318, by contrast, shows that a modern dual-core with a 3.50 GHz base clock and no boost can still produce respectable single-thread results. The Celeron’s Cinebench R20 single-core score of 133 and R23 single-core score of 318 are its strongest relative points, while its multi-core scores scale roughly with its two threads. The Athlon’s single-core Geekbench score of 455 is weaker, reflecting the older Piledriver architecture’s lower instructions-per-clock. The data does not support a claim that one part beats the other in any shared benchmark, because no shared test exists. What the numbers do show is that the Athlon X4 760K delivers a 41% higher multi-core score over its own single-core score (1098 vs 455), while the Celeron G5920’s multi-core scores are roughly 7 to 8 times its single-core scores in Cinebench R20 and R23, respectively. That ratio gap indicates that the Athlon’s four cores are better utilized in parallel workloads, whereas the Celeron’s two cores are the limiting factor.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is clear from the benchmark distribution. The Athlon X4 760K wins in multicore-heavy scenarios. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 1098 is the single highest recorded number for either part in any test, and it reflects the advantage of four physical cores over two. The Celeron G5920, with only two cores and two threads, cannot match that throughput in applications that scale across cores. The Athlon’s 4 MB of L2 cache and 192 KB of L1 cache provide additional support for threaded workloads that keep multiple cores busy. For tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, or compiling, the recorded data points to the Athlon X4 760K as the stronger choice, despite its older architecture.

The Celeron G5920 wins in single-core performance and efficiency-sensitive scenarios. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 318, while not directly comparable to Geekbench, indicates a much higher per-thread capability than the Athlon’s 455 Geekbench single-core score. The Celeron’s 14 nm Comet Lake architecture, compared to the Athlon’s 32 nm Piledriver, delivers better instructions-per-clock, which matters for everyday desktop tasks like web browsing, office document editing, and light productivity. The Celeron also includes integrated UHD 610 graphics, which the Athlon lacks entirely, making the Intel part the only option for systems without a discrete graphics card. The Celeron’s memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s versus the Athlon’s 29.9 GB/s further favors the Intel part in memory-sensitive single-threaded workloads. For a system that prioritizes low power draw, the Celeron’s 58 W TDP versus the Athlon’s 100 W TDP is another factor, though the database does not record power efficiency metrics directly.

The database shows the Celeron G5920 as an active production part, while the Athlon X4 760K is end-of-life. That status difference does not affect benchmark scores, but it does suggest that the Celeron is the more current platform. In terms of raw aggregate performance, the two are nearly identical: 777 vs 775. The choice comes down to workload type. Multi-threaded applications favor the Athlon, single-threaded and low-power scenarios favor the Celeron.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is generational. The Athlon X4 760K uses the Piledriver architecture on the Richland codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die contains 1,303 million transistors across 246 mm². The Celeron G5920 uses the Comet Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Celeron, so no direct silicon comparison is possible. The process node gap from 32 nm to 14 nm is significant, and it explains the Celeron’s higher efficiency and lower TDP despite its newer design.

The Athlon X4 760K has four cores and four threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The Celeron G5920 has two cores and two threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and no boost clock listed. The Athlon’s higher clock speeds and extra cores give it a raw throughput advantage, but the Celeron’s newer architecture compensates with better per-core efficiency. The Athlon’s cache hierarchy consists of 192 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2, with no L3 cache. The Celeron has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 2 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache on the Celeron is a meaningful advantage for latency-sensitive workloads, even though its total cache capacity is smaller than the Athlon’s L2 alone.

The memory support differs completely. The Athlon X4 760K uses DDR3 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Celeron G5920 uses DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. That 42.8% bandwidth advantage for the Celeron is substantial and affects any workload that saturates memory bandwidth. Neither part supports ECC memory. The Athlon’s PCIe interface is Gen 2, while the Celeron has Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Celeron also includes integrated UHD 610 graphics, whereas the Athlon has no integrated graphics at all. The Athlon’s multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking, while the Celeron’s multiplier is locked.

The socket and platform are different as well. The Athlon uses AMD Socket FM2, which is tied to older AMD motherboards. The Celeron uses Intel Socket 1200, which is a more modern platform. The Athlon’s release date is recorded as May 31, 2013, while the Celeron’s is April 29, 2020, a gap of roughly seven years. The manufacturing foundries also differ: GlobalFoundries for the Athlon, Intel for the Celeron.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Athlon X4 760K has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Celeron G5920 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Athlon’s base clock is 3.80 GHz, higher than the Celeron’s 3.50 GHz, and the Athlon adds a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, which the Celeron lacks entirely. The TDP is 100 W for the Athlon versus 58 W for the Celeron, a 42 W difference that favors the Intel part. The process node is 32 nm for the Athlon and 14 nm for the Celeron. The Athlon’s L1 cache is 192 KB total, while the Celeron’s is 64 KB per core. The L2 cache is 4 MB for the Athlon versus 256 KB per core for the Celeron. The Celeron has 2 MB of shared L3 cache; the Athlon has none.

Memory support is DDR3 for the Athlon and DDR4 for the Celeron, with both using dual-channel buses. The memory bandwidth is 29.9 GB/s for the Athlon and 42.7 GB/s for the Celeron. The PCIe generation is Gen 2 for the Athlon and Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the Celeron. The Athlon has no integrated graphics, while the Celeron includes UHD 610. The Athlon’s multiplier is unlocked; the Celeron’s is locked. The socket is AMD Socket FM2 for the Athlon and Intel Socket 1200 for the Celeron. The production status is end-of-life for the Athlon and active for the Celeron. The release dates are 2013-05-31 and 2020-04-29, respectively. The Athlon’s part number is AD760KWOHLBOXAD760KWOA44HL, while the Celeron’s is SRH42. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 760K has 4 cores, while the Intel Celeron G5920 has 2 cores.

Q: Does the Celeron G5920 support boost clocks?

A: No. The Celeron G5920 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz with no boost clock listed in the database. The Athlon X4 760K boosts from 3.80 GHz to 4.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 supports DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The AMD Athlon X4 760K supports DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is the Athlon X4 760K overclockable?

A: Yes, the multiplier is unlocked on the Athlon X4 760K. The Celeron G5920 has a locked multiplier.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 includes UHD 610 integrated graphics. The AMD Athlon X4 760K has no integrated graphics.

Q: How close are their average benchmark scores?

A: The Athlon X4 760K averages 777 across all benchmarks, while the Celeron G5920 averages 775. The Athlon is 0.3% ahead in the database’s aggregate ranking.