Intel Celeron G6900 vs Intel Core i9-9920X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core i9-9920X across every shared benchmark in the database. The i9-9920X wins all six head-to-head tests, with the Celeron G6900 failing to take a single test. The margins are massive and consistent, hovering around a 450% advantage in every Cinebench workload.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-9920X scores 2121 against the Celeron's 383, a 453.8% delta. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 299 versus 54, a 453.7% advantage. The i9-9920X does not merely scale its lead in multi-threaded workloads; it holds nearly the same percentage edge in single-threaded tests, which is notable given that the Celeron is based on a newer architecture.

Cinebench R20 results follow the identical pattern. The i9-9920X posts 8839 in multi-core versus 1599 for the Celeron, a 452.8% gap. In single-core R20, the i9-9920X scores 1247 while the Celeron manages only 225, a 454.2% delta. This is the largest percentage margin recorded in the entire head-to-head set, narrowly exceeding the R15 multi-core result.

Cinebench R23, the most current workload in the comparison, shows the i9-9920X at 21046 multi-core and 2971 single-core. The Celeron G6900 reaches 3808 and 537 respectively. The deltas are 452.7% and 453.3%. These numbers indicate that the i9-9920X's advantage is not workload-specific; it dominates across rendering generations and thread-count scaling patterns.

The Celeron G6900 does have additional PassMark benchmarks in the database that the i9-9920X lacks, so those cannot be compared directly. However, for the tests where both processors have recorded scores, the outcome is unambiguous. The i9-9920X leads by a factor of roughly 5.5x in every metric, regardless of whether the workload is fully parallel or single-threaded. This consistency suggests the performance gap is driven by fundamental resource differences rather than by any particular optimization in one benchmark suite.

The Verdict

The data makes the decision straightforward for anyone choosing between these two processors. The Intel Core i9-9920X is the clear choice for any workload represented in the benchmark database. Its 12 cores and 24 threads deliver scores that are approximately 450% higher across all Cinebench tests when compared to the Celeron G6900's 2 cores and 2 threads. The i9-9920X also offers a 3.50 GHz base clock and 4.50 GHz boost clock, while the Celeron G6900 has a 3.40 GHz base clock and no recorded boost clock.

The i9-9920X holds a 61st percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5917. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 7451 at an average score of 5915 with a 0% delta, the Intel Xeon W-2170B at 5985 with a -1.1% delta, the AMD EPYC 7401P at 5814 with a 1.8% delta, and the Intel Xeon E-2388G at 5805 with a 1.9% delta. The i9-9920X sits in the middle of this pack, essentially tied with the EPYC 7451 and marginally behind the Xeon W-2170B.

The Celeron G6900 also records a 61st percentile ranking, with an average benchmark score of 5561. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-10900X at 5555 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Core i9-11900KB at 5587 with a -0.5% delta, the Intel Atom x7433RE at 5601 with a -0.7% delta, and the Intel Core i7-12700T at 5606 with a -0.8% delta. The Celeron is effectively tied with these processors in average score, despite having far fewer cores, which speaks to the efficiency of its newer architecture in the specific workloads tracked by the database.

For users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput, the i9-9920X is the only rational selection. It has 12 cores versus 2, 24 threads versus 2, a 19.25 MB shared L3 cache versus 4 MB, and quad-channel memory support versus dual-channel. The i9-9920X also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 44 lanes, while the Celeron supports PCIe Gen 5. The i9-9920X is end-of-life and has a launch MSRP of $1189, while the Celeron G6900 is active with a launch MSRP of $52. The i9-9920X has an unlocked multiplier; the Celeron does not.

The Celeron G6900 does have advantages in the database. It is built on a 10 nm process node versus the i9-9920X's 14 nm node. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the i9-9920X supports only DDR4. The Celeron includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 710, while the i9-9920X has no integrated graphics recorded. The Celeron has a 46W TDP versus the i9-9920X's 165W TDP, and it uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform versus the Intel Socket 2066.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons in the database?

A: The Intel Core i9-9920X wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Celeron G6900. The Celeron records zero wins.

Q: What is the largest percentage margin in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i9-9920X scores 1247 against the Celeron's 225, a 454.2% delta.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i9-9920X scores 21046, while the Celeron G6900 scores 3808, giving the i9-9920X a 452.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900 have any recorded cache advantage?

A: No. The Celeron has 4 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, while the i9-9920X has 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The i9-9920X also has 64 KB of L1 cache per core versus the Celeron's 80 KB per core.

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The i9-9920X supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and 85.3 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Celeron G6900 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, and its memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Celeron G6900 includes UHD Graphics 710. The i9-9920X has no integrated graphics recorded in the database.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i9-9920X has an average benchmark score of 5917, with its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7451, at 5915 (0% delta). The Celeron G6900 has an average score of 5561, with its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-10900X, at 5555 (0.1% delta).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The i9-9920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks are close: 3.50 GHz for the i9-9920X and 3.40 GHz for the Celeron. The i9-9920X has a 4.50 GHz boost clock; the Celeron has no boost clock recorded. TDP differs substantially: 165W for the i9-9920X versus 46W for the Celeron.

The sockets are incompatible. The i9-9920X uses Intel Socket 2066, while the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700. The i9-9920X is from the Core i9 X-Series 9th Gen, while the Celeron is from the Celeron Alder Lake-S family. The i9-9920X is manufactured on a 14 nm process with a 484 mm² die size; the Celeron is on a 10 nm process with no die size recorded. The i9-9920X has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 19.25 MB shared L3. The Celeron has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, plus 4 MB shared L3.

Memory support diverges. The i9-9920X supports DDR4 only, with a quad-channel bus and 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel bus and no bandwidth figure recorded. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe support differs: the i9-9920X has Gen 3 with 44 lanes (CPU only), while the Celeron has Gen 5 with no lane count recorded. The i9-9920X has no integrated graphics; the Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710. The i9-9920X has an unlocked multiplier; the Celeron does not. The i9-9920X is end-of-life with a launch MSRP of $1189; the Celeron is active with a launch MSRP of $52.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is wide. The i9-9920X uses the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-X, while the Celeron G6900 uses the Alder Lake architecture, specifically Alder Lake-S. The i9-9920X is built on a 14 nm process node at Intel's foundry, while the Celeron is built on a 10 nm process node, also at Intel's foundry.

The core and thread counts reflect the fundamental design difference. The i9-9920X is a high-core-count desktop processor with 12 cores and 24 threads, designed for heavy parallel workloads. The Celeron is a dual-core, dual-thread part aimed at low-power entry-level systems. The cache hierarchy reflects this: the i9-9920X allocates 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with a 19.25 MB shared L3, while the Celeron allocates 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core with only 4 MB shared L3.

The memory controllers differ as well. The i9-9920X features a quad-channel DDR4 controller with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, which is appropriate for its X-Series platform. The Celeron uses a dual-channel controller that supports both DDR4 and DDR5, though its bandwidth is not recorded in the database. The PCIe implementation also separates the two: the i9-9920X provides Gen 3 with 44 CPU lanes, a hallmark of the high-end desktop platform, while the Celeron provides Gen 5 support without a recorded lane count.

The integrated graphics situation is a clear differentiator. The Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710, making it a self-contained solution for basic display output. The i9-9920X has no integrated graphics recorded, which is typical for the X-Series parts that assume a discrete GPU. The production status also differs: the i9-9920X is end-of-life, while the Celeron remains active. The i9-9920X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking; the Celeron is locked. These architectural choices explain the benchmark results: the i9-9920X's massive core count and cache resources produce roughly 450% higher scores across all shared Cinebench tests, despite the Celeron's newer process node and memory flexibility.