CPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually close contest between the Intel Celeron G6900TE and the AMD FX-4320. Across five Cinebench tests, the Intel part wins every single matchup, yet the margins are razor-thin throughout. The average benchmark scores tell the story: the Celeron G6900TE sits at 925, while the FX-4320 trails at 921, a difference of only 0.4%.

Starting with Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel Celeron G6900TE scores 2687 against the AMD FX-4320's 2677. That 10-point gap translates to a 0.4% advantage for Intel. The single-core R23 result follows the same pattern: 379 for Intel versus 378 for AMD, a 0.3% edge. These are margins that would be virtually imperceptible in real-world use, yet they consistently favor the newer architecture.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore test shows Intel ahead at 1128 versus 1124, again a 0.4% delta. The single-core R20 test gives Intel a 159 to 158 victory, a 0.6% margin, the largest relative difference in the entire head-to-head set. Cinebench R15 multicore rounds out the comparison with Intel scoring 270 against AMD's 269, another 0.4% win.

The percentile rankings place both processors at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy essentially the same performance tier within the broader market. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the Intel Core i3-4350T at 926 (0.2% higher), the Intel Core i5-4288U at 927 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Core i7-870 at 928 (0.3% higher). The AMD FX-4320 appears in this list as well, with its 921 average sitting 0.4% below the Celeron.

For the AMD side, its nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A10-9700E at 919 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G at 919 (0.2% lower), and the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U at 917 (0.4% lower). The Intel Celeron G6900TE appears as the closest competitor above it, again at that 0.4% gap.

What stands out most clearly is the consistency of the Intel advantage. While no single test shows a meaningful lead, the Celeron G6900TE wins all five benchmarks. The largest delta is 0.6% in R20 single-core; the smallest is 0.3% in R23 single-core. This uniformity suggests a small but genuine architectural edge rather than test-specific variance.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron G6900TE wins in every benchmark category represented in the data. In multicore workloads, it leads across all three Cinebench versions tested: R15, R20, and R23. In single-core workloads, it also leads in both R20 and R23. This gives Intel a clean sweep of all five head-to-head tests.

The single-core advantage, though small, is worth noting. The Celeron G6900TE's 0.6% lead in R20 single-core is its strongest relative performance. This suggests the Alder Lake architecture handles lightly-threaded tasks slightly better than the Piledriver design, even when accounting for the FX-4320's higher clock speeds.

For the AMD FX-4320, there is no benchmark category where it emerges victorious. However, the data does not show any catastrophic weakness either. The FX-4320 remains competitive in every test, trailing by margins that are statistically negligible. Its 4-core, 4-thread configuration and 4.00 GHz base clock (4.20 GHz boost) keep it within striking distance of the 2-core, 2-thread Celeron in all measured scenarios.

The practical takeaway from the benchmark distribution is that neither processor offers a meaningful performance advantage in Cinebench workloads. The Intel part wins on paper, but the margins are so small that users would be unlikely to perceive any difference in rendering or compute tasks. The FX-4320's higher core count does not translate into a multicore win, as the Celeron's newer architecture compensates for its lower core and thread counts.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial, reflecting a decade of semiconductor evolution. The Intel Celeron G6900TE is built on Alder Lake architecture, specifically the Alder Lake-S codename, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture under the Vishera codename, manufactured on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries.

Core configurations differ significantly. The Celeron G6900TE has 2 cores and 2 threads, while the FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds favor AMD: the FX-4320 runs at a 4.00 GHz base clock with a 4.20 GHz boost, whereas the Celeron G6900TE operates at 2.40 GHz with no boost clock listed. This 1.60 GHz base clock difference is substantial, yet the Celeron still manages to edge out the AMD part in every benchmark.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Celeron G6900TE features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The FX-4320 offers 192 KB of L1 cache, 4 MB of L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. While the AMD part has more total L1 and L2 cache, the Intel design's per-core allocation is more generous relative to its core count.

Memory support represents another major difference. The Celeron G6900TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. The FX-4320 supports only DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode, with a listed memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, and uses PCIe Gen 2. The Intel part also includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 710, while the AMD processor relies on chipset features on certain motherboards for display output.

Process node and transistor counts tell the efficiency story. The Celeron G6900TE uses a 10 nm process, while the FX-4320 uses 32 nm. The AMD part contains 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel processor's transistor count and die size are not listed, but the smaller process node typically enables higher density and lower power consumption. The TDP figures reflect this: the Celeron G6900TE draws 35 W, while the FX-4320 consumes 95 W.

Socket compatibility separates the two completely. The Celeron G6900TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the FX-4320 uses AMD Socket AM3+. The release dates are nearly a decade apart, the FX-4320 launched on 2012-10-22, while the Celeron G6900TE arrived on 2022-01-03. The FX-4320 is marked as end-of-life, while the Celeron G6900TE remains active in production.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900TE has an average benchmark score of 925, which is 0.4% higher than the AMD FX-4320's 921.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900TE has 2 cores and 2 threads. The AMD FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900TE has a TDP of 35 W, while the AMD FX-4320 has a TDP of 95 W.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: Only the Intel Celeron G6900TE supports DDR5 memory. It also supports DDR4, while the AMD FX-4320 supports only DDR3.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900TE uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The AMD FX-4320 uses a 32 nm process node from GlobalFoundries.

Q: Is the AMD FX-4320 still in production?

A: No, the AMD FX-4320 is marked as end-of-life. The Intel Celeron G6900TE has an active production status.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Celeron G6900TE | AMD FX-4320 |

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

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 2 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 4.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket AM3+ |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Piledriver |

| Codename | Alder Lake-S | Vishera |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 315 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 4 MB |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 29.9 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5 | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |

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

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2012-10-22 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

# The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, if narrow, case for the Intel Celeron G6900TE. It wins all five Cinebench tests against the AMD FX-4320, with margins ranging from 0.3% to 0.6%. Its average benchmark score of 925 exceeds the FX-4320's 921. Both processors sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance class.

For users prioritizing efficiency, the Celeron G6900TE is the obvious choice. Its 35 W TDP is less than half the FX-4320's 95 W figure, making it far more suitable for compact or power-conscious builds. The modern platform advantages, DDR4/DDR5 memory support, PCIe Gen 5, and integrated UHD Graphics 710, further tilt the balance toward Intel. The absence of a listed boost clock is notable, but the 2.40 GHz base clock still produces competitive results.

The AMD FX-4320 retains some arguments in its favor. Its 4-core, 4-thread configuration offers more raw parallelism on paper, and the 4.00 GHz base clock with 4.20 GHz boost provides substantial clock speed headroom. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, a feature the Celeron G6900TE lacks. However, none of these advantages translate into a benchmark victory in the data provided.

Given the near-identical performance, the decision hinges on platform factors. The Celeron G6900TE is an active, modern part with contemporary connectivity and low power draw. The FX-4320 is an end-of-life product from 2012 on a legacy platform. For new builds, the data supports choosing the Intel Celeron G6900TE. For those already invested in the AM3+ platform with DDR3 memory, the FX-4320 remains a viable, if aging, option that matches the Celeron's performance within statistical noise.