Intel Celeron G6900E vs Intel Core i5-4670 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data paints an unusually one-sided picture. Across all six shared Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i5-4670 wins every single matchup, with the smallest margin being 27.9% and the largest reaching 29.4%. This is not a case of incremental advantages; it is a systematic performance gap that appears in every workload the database recorded.

Starting with multi-core results, the i5-4670 posts 469 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core against the Celeron G6900E’s 366 points, a 28.1% advantage. The pattern holds in R20, where the i5-4670 scores 1957 versus 1525, again a 28.3% lead. In R23 multi-core, the i5-4670 reaches 4660 while the Celeron manages 3632, matching that same 28.3% delta. These consistent percentages suggest the gap is structural rather than workload-specific, likely tied to core count and thread resources rather than any single optimization.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though with slightly more variance. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the i5-4670 scores 66 against the Celeron’s 51, which is a 29.4% difference, the largest margin in the entire comparison. R20 single-core sees the i5-4670 at 275 versus 215, a 27.9% gap, the smallest recorded. R23 single-core lands at 657 versus 512, again 28.3%. The fact that even single-threaded tests favor the older chip is notable, as the Celeron G6900E comes from a much newer architecture with a smaller process node.

The Celeron G6900E does have additional benchmark data that the i5-4670 lacks: Geekbench scores of 2702 multi-core and 1561 single-core. However, since there is no corresponding i5-4670 result in the database, no direct comparison is possible. The absence of Geekbench data for the i5-4670 means the head-to-head record remains solely based on the six Cinebench tests, where the older chip dominates.

Where Each One Wins

Given the win tally of 6 to 0, the use-case split is straightforward: the i5-4670 wins everywhere the database measured. For multi-threaded productivity tasks, the 4-core, 4-thread design of the i5-4670 provides a substantial edge over the 2-core, 2-thread Celeron. The 28.3% lead in both R20 and R23 multi-core suggests that any workload that scales across cores, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or compiling, will favor the i5-4670 by roughly that margin.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the i5-4670 also comes out ahead, with margins between 27.9% and 29.4% depending on the Cinebench version. This is more surprising given that the Celeron G6900E has a newer microarchitecture (Alder Lake-S) and a smaller process node (10 nm versus 22 nm). Yet the raw clock speed advantage of the i5-4670, with a base of 3.40 GHz and boost up to 3.80 GHz versus the Celeron’s fixed 3.00 GHz with no boost, appears to outweigh architectural generational gains in these specific tests.

The Celeron G6900E has no recorded wins in any shared benchmark. Its only unique advantage lies in its lower TDP of 46 watts compared to 84 watts for the i5-4670, which may appeal to low-power builds, but that is a specification difference rather than a benchmark victory. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, the data is unambiguous.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel design. The i5-4670 is built on the Haswell architecture, released in mid-2013, while the Celeron G6900E uses Alder Lake-S, launched in early 2022. The process node tells the story of nine years of manufacturing progress: the i5-4670 uses a 22 nm node, while the Celeron G6900E uses 10 nm. The database records the i5-4670 with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while the Celeron’s transistor count and die size are not listed.

Core configuration differs fundamentally. The i5-4670 has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Celeron G6900E has just 2 cores and 2 threads, also without hyper-threading. This 2-core deficit is the most likely explanation for the consistent multi-core gap, as the i5-4670 can process twice as many threads simultaneously.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The i5-4670 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3. The Celeron G6900E has larger per-core caches: 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but a smaller 4 MB of shared L3. The larger L2 on the Celeron reflects a newer cache design, but the smaller L3 and fewer cores limit its overall capacity.

Memory support diverges sharply. The i5-4670 uses DDR3 memory, while the Celeron G6900E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the newer memory types on the Celeron offer higher potential bandwidth, though the database does not list specific bandwidth figures. PCIe support also differs: the i5-4670 has PCIe Gen 3, while the Celeron G6900E has PCIe Gen 5, a significant generational leap for expansion card bandwidth.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-4670 includes Intel HD 4600, while the Celeron G6900E includes UHD Graphics 710. The database does not provide benchmark scores for these iGPUs, so no performance comparison is possible, but the naming suggests a newer graphics architecture on the Celeron.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications that are directly recorded. The i5-4670 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Celeron G6900E has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clock speeds are 3.40 GHz for the i5-4670 versus 3.00 GHz for the Celeron. The i5-4670 also has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Celeron has no boost clock listed, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency.

Thermal design power differs notably: the i5-4670 is rated at 84 watts, while the Celeron G6900E is rated at just 46 watts. This makes the Celeron significantly more power-efficient on paper, though at the cost of performance. Sockets are incompatible: the i5-4670 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the Celeron G6900E uses Intel Socket 1700, meaning they cannot be swapped into the same motherboard.

Process node differs, with the i5-4670 at 22 nm and the Celeron G6900E at 10 nm. Cache configurations are distinct, with the i5-4670 having 6 MB of shared L3 versus 4 MB on the Celeron, while per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger on the Celeron. Memory support differs, with the i5-4670 limited to DDR3 and the Celeron supporting DDR4 and DDR5. PCIe generation is Gen 3 for the i5-4670 and Gen 5 for the Celeron. Integrated graphics are Intel HD 4600 versus UHD Graphics 710. The Celeron G6900E is marked as an Active production status, while the i5-4670 has no production status recorded. The i5-4670 has a listed part number of SR14D, while the Celeron has none. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-4670 has an average benchmark score of 1347, while the Intel Celeron G6900E has an average of 1321. This places the i5-4670 slightly ahead by about 2%, though both sit near the 35th to 36th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the newer Celeron G6900E beat the older i5-4670 in any Cinebench test?

A: No. Across all six shared Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in multi-core and single-core), the i5-4670 wins every time, with deltas ranging from 27.9% to 29.4%.

Q: Why does the i5-4670 have such a large multi-core lead?

A: The i5-4670 has 4 cores and 4 threads, double the 2 cores and 2 threads of the Celeron G6900E. The multi-core margins are consistently around 28.3%, which aligns with the core count advantage.

Q: Is the Celeron G6900E more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The Celeron G6900E has a TDP of 46 watts versus 84 watts for the i5-4670. This is a substantial difference, making the Celeron less demanding on cooling and power delivery.

Q: Can these two processors be used in the same motherboard?

A: No. The i5-4670 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the Celeron G6900E uses Intel Socket 1700. They are physically and electrically incompatible.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900E support newer memory types?

A: Yes. The Celeron G6900E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the i5-4670 is limited to DDR3. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute performance: the Intel Core i5-4670. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks with margins never below 27.9%, and its average benchmark score of 1347 outpaces the Celeron’s 1321. For workloads that rely on CPU throughput, whether multi-threaded rendering or single-threaded responsiveness, the i5-4670 is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, the Celeron G6900E is not without merit. Its 46-watt TDP is nearly half that of the i5-4670’s 84 watts, which makes it a better fit for power-constrained or passively cooled systems. It also supports newer memory types (DDR4 and DDR5) and PCIe Gen 5, which future-proofs system expansion in ways the aging DDR3 and PCIe Gen 3 platform of the i5-4670 cannot match. The Celeron’s production status is Active, while the i5-4670’s is not listed, suggesting the newer part is still in the market.

The choice depends on priorities. If raw compute performance is the only criterion, the i5-4670 wins outright, and the benchmark data is unambiguous. If power efficiency, platform modernity, and expansion capabilities matter more, the Celeron G6900E offers those advantages, though at a significant performance cost. The data does not support any scenario where the Celeron outperforms the i5-4670 in CPU benchmarks, but it does offer a different set of trade-offs that may suit specific builds. Ultimately, the i5-4670 is the performance pick, while the Celeron G6900E is the efficiency and platform-forward option.