Intel Celeron G5920 vs Intel Core i5-3610ME Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-3610ME across all five Cinebench tests, though the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-3610ME scores 230 against 226 for the Celeron G5920, a 1.8% lead. That single percentage point gap represents the widest delta in the entire comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The i5-3610ME posts 961 in multicore versus 945 for the Celeron, a 1.7% advantage. In single-core R20, the i5-3610ME manages 135 against 133, a 1.5% edge. The R23 results mirror this: 2289 versus 2252 in multicore (1.6% ahead) and 323 versus 318 in single-core (1.6% ahead).

What stands out is not the size of the wins, but their consistency. Every benchmark, whether it stresses one core or all of them, lands within a 1.5% to 1.8% range. The i5-3610ME never falters, and the Celeron never closes the gap. This is a rare case where a mobile chip from 2012 edges out a desktop chip from 2020 in every single recorded workload.

The average benchmark scores from the database reinforce this. The i5-3610ME sits at 788, while the Celeron G5920 sits at 775. That 13-point difference places the i5-3610ME in the same percentile tier (21st) as the Celeron, but with a slightly higher absolute score. The nearest rivals for the i5-3610ME include the Intel Core i5-4210U at an identical 788, while the Celeron G5920 matches the Intel Core i3-3250T at 775. These are adjacent performance tiers, not distant ones.

In practical terms, the benchmark results indicate that the i5-3610ME offers a modest but repeatable advantage. A 1.8% lead in R15 multicore translates to roughly 2 extra frames in a CPU-bound render or a fraction of a second shaved off a compile. It is not a transformative difference, but it is a real one, and it appears in every test the database recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The i5-3610ME is built on Intel's 22 nm process, using the Ivy Bridge architecture. It is a mobile part, designed for laptops and compact systems, with a 35 W TDP. The Celeron G5920, by contrast, uses the 14 nm Comet Lake architecture and targets desktop systems with a 58 W TDP. The newer node gives the Celeron a denser transistor layout, but the i5-3610ME compensates with a smaller die size of 118 mm² versus no recorded die size for the Celeron.

Core counts are identical at two, but threading differs. The i5-3610ME supports four threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Celeron G5920 is a straight dual-core with two threads. That extra thread count is likely why the i5-3610ME leads in multicore tests despite the Celeron's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz. The i5-3610ME also has a boost clock of 3.30 GHz, which the Celeron lacks entirely.

Cache allocations favor the i5-3610ME as well. Both chips share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i5-3610ME has 3 MB of shared L3 versus 2 MB for the Celeron. That extra megabyte of cache helps the i5-3610ME keep more data close to the cores, reducing stalls in memory-heavy workloads.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Celeron G5920 explicitly supports DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the i5-3610ME has no specific memory support listed in the database. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Celeron's DDR4 support and higher bandwidth figure suggest a more modern memory subsystem. The i5-3610ME also lacks PCIe details, while the Celeron records Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-3610ME carries Intel HD 4000, a capable iGPU for its era. The Celeron G5920 uses UHD 610, which is a more modern but entry-level solution. Neither chip is aimed at gaming without a discrete GPU, but the HD 4000 has a longer track record in the database's historical data.

The release dates tell the generational story: the i5-3610ME launched on 2012-05-31, while the Celeron G5920 arrived on 2020-04-29. That eight-year gap is visible in the architecture choices, but the benchmark results show that raw age matters less than design intent. The i5-3610ME was a mid-range mobile chip with Hyper-Threading and boost clocks; the Celeron G5920 is an entry-level desktop chip with a high base clock but no boost and no threading.

The Verdict

The data points to the i5-3610ME as the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. Its wins range from 1.5% to 1.8%, and it achieves these margins despite a lower base clock and an older process node. The key differentiators are Hyper-Threading, a larger L3 cache, and a boost clock that the Celeron lacks.

However, the Celeron G5920 is not a bad chip; it is simply outmatched by a small margin. The 21st percentile ranking for both CPUs means they occupy the same performance class. If you are choosing strictly on benchmark scores, the i5-3610ME wins every head-to-head test. The Celeron's advantages lie elsewhere: a newer socket (Intel Socket 1200 versus Intel Socket G2), DDR4 memory support, and an active production status, meaning it is still available for new builds. The i5-3610ME is a mobile part with a production status that is not recorded as active.

For a builder prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the i5-3610ME is the pick. For someone needing a modern socket and current memory standards, the Celeron G5920 has the platform edge. Neither chip will win awards for speed, but the i5-3610ME wins the performance comparison outright.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher multicore score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-3610ME scores 2289, which is 1.6% ahead of the Celeron G5920's 2252.

Q: Does the Celeron G5920 have a boost clock?

A: No. The Celeron G5920 has a fixed base clock of 3.50 GHz with no recorded boost clock. The i5-3610ME boosts from 2.70 GHz to 3.30 GHz.

Q: How many threads does each processor support?

A: The i5-3610ME supports 4 threads from 2 cores via Hyper-Threading. The Celeron G5920 supports 2 threads from 2 cores with no threading.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The i5-3610ME has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Celeron G5920 has 2 MB.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 21st percentile against all CPUs in the database, but the i5-3610ME has a higher average benchmark score of 788 versus 775.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Celeron G5920 explicitly lists DDR4 memory support with a 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-3610ME has no specific memory support recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-3610ME wins every benchmark test in the database, so its territory is clear: any workload that benefits from extra threads or additional cache. The 4-thread configuration gives it an edge in lightly threaded multitasking, and the 3 MB L3 cache helps with repetitive data access patterns. If the task is rendering, compression, or any Cinebench-style workload, the i5-3610ME should finish slightly ahead.

The Celeron G5920 does not win a single recorded benchmark, but it has structural advantages that matter in a full system build. Its Intel Socket 1200 platform is current and supports DDR4 memory with a higher bandwidth rating. Its 58 W TDP is higher than the i5-3610ME's 35 W, but for a desktop chip that is irrelevant; the i5-3610ME's low TDP was designed for thermal-constrained laptops. The Celeron also has Gen 3 PCIe with 16 lanes, which the i5-3610ME does not record, making the Celeron a more flexible choice for adding discrete GPUs or NVMe drives.

In short, the i5-3610ME wins on raw compute performance. The Celeron G5920 wins on platform modernity and expansion capability. Choose the i5-3610ME if your only metric is benchmark scores; choose the Celeron if you need a current socket and memory standard.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i5-3610ME | Intel Celeron G5920 |

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

| Cores | 2 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 2 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | None recorded |

| TDP | 35 W | 58 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Comet Lake |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | Not recorded |

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

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | Not recorded | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 42.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | False | False |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4000 | UHD 610 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2020-04-29 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | False | False |

| Part Number | SR0QJ | SRH42 |

The specification table shows two processors with identical core counts and per-core cache sizes, but divergent design goals. The i5-3610ME is a mobile chip with Hyper-Threading, boost capability, and a smaller die on an older node. The Celeron G5920 is a desktop chip with a higher base clock, DDR4 support, and a newer process, but it sacrifices threading and cache to hit its entry-level position. The benchmark data confirms that the i5-3610ME's feature set translates to better performance, while the Celeron's platform features make it a more current building block for a new system.