Intel Celeron G5920 vs Intel Core i3-3240 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in overall average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 records an average benchmark score of 775, while the Intel Core i3-3240 scores 761. The Celeron sits at the 21st percentile of all CPUs, and the Core i3 sits at the 20th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-3240 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz. Neither processor has a boost clock.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The Intel Celeron G5920 supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core i3-3240 supports DDR3 memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 has 2 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i3-3240 has 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i3 has 1 MB more.

Q: Which CPU has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 has 4 threads (2 cores with Hyper-Threading), while the Intel Celeron G5920 has 2 threads (2 cores without Hyper-Threading). Both have 2 physical cores.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each CPU have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 wins all 5 head-to-head benchmark tests. The Intel Core i3-3240 wins 0.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel's design. The Intel Celeron G5920 is built on the Comet Lake architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process node, and uses the Intel Socket 1200. It belongs to the Celeron generation of the Comet Lake family. The Intel Core i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process node, and uses the Intel Socket 1155. It belongs to the Core i3 generation of the Ivy Bridge family.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm for the Celeron versus 22 nm for the Core i3. The newer manufacturing process allows the Celeron to achieve higher clock speeds while maintaining a similar power envelope. The Celeron has a TDP of 58 watts, while the Core i3 has a TDP of 55 watts. Despite the slightly higher TDP, the Celeron runs at 3.50 GHz base clock versus 3.40 GHz for the Core i3.

The memory support diverges sharply. The Celeron G5920 supports DDR4 memory with a recorded memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Core i3-3240 supports DDR3 memory, and no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database for it. This means the Celeron has access to newer, faster memory technology, which can influence real-world performance beyond raw CPU compute.

Cache layouts also differ. Both have the same per-core L1 cache (64 KB per core) and the same per-core L2 cache (256 KB per core). The difference appears in the shared L3 cache: the Celeron has 2 MB, while the Core i3 has 3 MB. The larger L3 cache on the Core i3 is a potential advantage for workloads that benefit from a larger shared cache pool, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into wins.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Celeron G5920 includes UHD 610 graphics, while the Core i3-3240 includes Intel HD 2500 graphics. Both are entry-level integrated solutions, but they belong to different graphics generations. The Celeron also has a smaller die size advantage, though the Core i3's die size is recorded at 94 mm² while the Celeron's die size is not recorded.

Both CPUs use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), support dual-channel memory, and do not support ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Celeron is marked as Active in production status, while the Core i3 has no production status recorded. The Celeron was released in April 2020, while the Core i3 was released in September 2012, a gap of roughly eight years.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers five Cinebench tests, and the Intel Celeron G5920 wins every single one. The margins are consistent, ranging from 12.4% to 12.8% across all tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Celeron scores 226 against 201 for the Core i3, a 12.4% lead. This is the smallest margin in the set, but still a clear win. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Celeron scores 945 against 840, a 12.5% advantage. The multi-core results show that despite the Core i3 having 4 threads versus 2 for the Celeron, the Celeron's higher clock speed and newer architecture overcome the thread deficit.

Single-core performance follows the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Celeron scores 133 against 118, a 12.7% win. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Celeron scores 318 against 282, a 12.8% win. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the Celeron at 2252 versus 2000, a 12.6% advantage.

The consistency of the margins across all five tests is notable. The Celeron leads by roughly 12 to 13 percentage points in every workload, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. This suggests a fundamental performance advantage rather than a workload-specific strength. The newer 14 nm process and higher base clock of 3.50 GHz appear to deliver a uniform benefit over the older 22 nm Ivy Bridge design.

The Core i3's 4 threads do not translate into a multi-core win anywhere. Even in the multi-core tests where the thread count could matter, the Celeron maintains the same approximate 12.5% lead. The database shows no test where the Core i3 comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two CPUs:

• Base clock: 3.50 GHz (Celeron) versus 3.40 GHz (Core i3)
• Threads: 2 (Celeron) versus 4 (Core i3)
• TDP: 58 watts (Celeron) versus 55 watts (Core i3)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1200 (Celeron) versus Intel Socket 1155 (Core i3)
• Architecture: Comet Lake (Celeron) versus Ivy Bridge (Core i3)
• Process node: 14 nm (Celeron) versus 22 nm (Core i3)
• L3 cache: 2 MB shared (Celeron) versus 3 MB shared (Core i3)
• Memory support: DDR4 (Celeron) versus DDR3 (Core i3)
• Memory bandwidth: 42.7 GB/s (Celeron) versus not recorded (Core i3)
• Integrated graphics: UHD 610 (Celeron) versus Intel HD 2500 (Core i3)
• Die size: not recorded (Celeron) versus 94 mm² (Core i3)
• Release date: 2020-04-29 (Celeron) versus 2012-09-02 (Core i3)
• Part number: SRH42 (Celeron) versus SR0RH (Core i3)
• Production status: Active (Celeron) versus not recorded (Core i3)

Fields that are the same include cores (2 each), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC support (false for both), PCIe (Gen 3, 16 lanes CPU only), market segment (Desktop), and multiplier unlock (false for both).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron G5920 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It leads in multi-core performance across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, and it leads in single-core performance across Cinebench R20 and R23. The margins are uniformly around 12.5% to 12.8%.

The Celeron's wins are driven by its higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and its newer 14 nm Comet Lake architecture. The DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a modern platform advantage. For workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, such as certain compression or data processing tasks, the Celeron has a clear edge.

The Intel Core i3-3240 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its 4 threads and larger 3 MB L3 cache do not produce a win in the database. The larger L3 cache could theoretically help in workloads with high cache reuse, but the recorded data does not show any such benefit. Similarly, the 4 threads could help in heavily threaded applications, but the multi-core tests show the Celeron still wins.

The Core i3's lower TDP of 55 watts versus 58 watts for the Celeron is a minor efficiency difference, but the Celeron still delivers higher performance in the same thermal class.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Celeron G5920 is the faster processor in every measured test. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks with margins between 12.4% and 12.8%. The average benchmark score of 775 versus 761 for the Core i3 confirms the overall advantage.

The Celeron G5920 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance. Its 3.50 GHz base clock, 14 nm process, and DDR4 memory support give it a modern foundation that the older Core i3-3240 cannot match. The Core i3's 4 threads and 3 MB L3 cache are notable specifications, but they do not translate into benchmark wins.

The Core i3-3240 remains a functional dual-core processor with Hyper-Threading, and its 55 watt TDP is slightly lower than the Celeron's 58 watts. For users on a legacy Intel Socket 1155 platform, the Core i3 might be the only option without a motherboard change. However, the recorded performance data shows no scenario where the Core i3 outperforms the Celeron.

The release dates tell the story: the Celeron launched in 2020, the Core i3 in 2012. The eight-year gap is reflected in the performance gap. The Celeron G5920 is the recommended pick based on the database evidence. The Core i3-3240 is a product of its era, and the benchmark results confirm that era has passed.