Intel Celeron G6900T vs Intel Core i5-3570K Comparison

The Intel Celeron G6900T, a 2-core Alder Lake part with a launch MSRP of $42, and the Intel Core i5-3570K, a 4-core Ivy Bridge part with a launch MSRP of $212, represent two very different eras of Intel desktop silicon. The Celeron is a modern, power-efficient entry-level chip, while the i5 is a decade-old enthusiast processor with an unlocked multiplier. The recorded data shows a clear split: the i5 dominates in Cinebench rendering workloads, while the Celeron wins decisively in Geekbench, particularly in single-core performance. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the use cases where each CPU excels.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison includes seven benchmark tests. The Intel Core i5-3570K wins five of them, while the Intel Celeron G6900T wins two. The margins, however, are not uniform. In all five Cinebench tests, the i5 leads by a consistent margin of roughly 26%. For example, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5 scores 425 against the Celeron's 314, a deficit of 26.1% for the Celeron. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1772 vs 1309, -26.1%), R20 single-core (250 vs 184, -26.4%), R23 multi-core (4221 vs 3117, -26.2%), and R23 single-core (596 vs 440, -26.2%). This uniformity suggests a fundamental throughput difference that scales across both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads.

The Celeron's wins come in Geekbench. In Geekbench multi-core, the Celeron scores 2460 against the i5's 2245, a 9.6% lead. In Geekbench single-core, the Celeron scores 1422 against 776, an 83.2% lead. The single-core result is the largest margin in the entire comparison, nearly doubling the i5's score. This is a stark contrast to the Cinebench single-core result, where the i5 leads by 26.2%. The discrepancy indicates that the two benchmarks stress different aspects of the CPU, with Geekbench being more sensitive to architectural efficiency.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Celeron G6900T has an average score of 1321, while the i5-3570K averages 1293. The Celeron's average is slightly higher, but both CPUs sit in the same performance tier. The nearest rivals for the Celeron include the Intel Core i5-2500K, which scores 1329 with a delta of -0.6%, and the Intel Core i7-3770T, which scores 1314 with a delta of 0.6%. For the i5-3570K, the nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3630QM (1289, 0.3% delta) and the Intel Core i5-4670R (1286, 0.5% delta). These figures confirm that both processors are positioned within a narrow performance band, despite their different architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results point to a clear use-case split. The i5-3570K wins every Cinebench test, which are rendering workloads that scale with core count and raw clock speed. The i5 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Celeron has only 2 cores and 2 threads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5 scores 4221 versus 3117, a 26.2% advantage. This makes the i5 the better choice for multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or any task that can utilize four cores effectively.

The Celeron G6900T, on the other hand, wins both Geekbench tests. In Geekbench single-core, the Celeron's 1422 score is 83.2% higher than the i5's 776. This indicates that for single-threaded tasks such as web browsing, office applications, or many games, the Celeron is significantly faster. Even in Geekbench multi-core, the Celeron leads by 9.6%, despite having half the cores. This suggests that the Celeron's Alder Lake architecture is more efficient per core, allowing it to overcome the i5's core count advantage in this particular benchmark.

The divergence between Cinebench and Geekbench is notable. In Cinebench single-core, the i5 wins by 26.2%, but in Geekbench single-core, the Celeron wins by 83.2%. This means that the choice of CPU depends heavily on the specific workload. For rendering tasks that resemble Cinebench, the i5 is superior. For general-purpose computing that resembles Geekbench, the Celeron is the better performer.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different architectural generations. The Celeron G6900T is based on Alder Lake, built on a 10 nm process, while the i5-3570K is based on Ivy Bridge, built on a 22 nm process. The Celeron has 2 cores and 2 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and no boost clock. The i5 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The i5 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Celeron does not.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. The Celeron has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5 has more L3 cache overall, but the Celeron has larger L1 and L2 caches per core, which can benefit single-threaded performance.

Memory support is another major difference. The Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the i5 supports only DDR3, also dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The Celeron does not list a memory bandwidth figure. The i5's PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Celeron has PCIe Gen 5. The integrated graphics also differ: the Celeron has UHD Graphics 710, while the i5 has Intel HD 4000.

Power consumption is a significant differentiator. The Celeron has a TDP of 35W, while the i5 has a TDP of 77W. The Celeron is far more power-efficient, which is expected given its newer process node and lower core count. The sockets are incompatible: the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700, while the i5 uses Intel Socket 1155. The i5 has 1,400 million transistors and a die size of 160 mm², while the Celeron does not list those figures.

The release dates and production statuses also differ. The Celeron was released on 2022-01-03 and is listed as Active. The i5 was released on 2012-04-28 and is End-of-life. This means the Celeron is a current product, while the i5 is discontinued.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-core score in Geekbench?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900T scores 1422 in Geekbench single-core, which is 83.2% higher than the Intel Core i5-3570K's 776.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-3570K scores 4221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Celeron G6900T scores 3117, a 26.2% deficit for the Celeron.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Celeron G6900T has 2 cores and 2 threads. The i5-3570K has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the i5 supports DDR3.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Celeron has a TDP of 35W, the i5 has a TDP of 77W.

Q: Which CPU is still in production?

A: The Celeron G6900T is listed as Active, while the i5-3570K is End-of-life.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that the Intel Core i5-3570K is the clear winner for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. It wins all five Cinebench tests by a consistent margin of about 26%, thanks to its four cores and higher clock speeds. For users who prioritize multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or other tasks that scale with core count, the i5 is the data-backed choice.

The Intel Celeron G6900T, however, is the better performer in Geekbench, especially in single-core tasks. Its 83.2% lead in Geekbench single-core and 9.6% lead in Geekbench multi-core indicate that it offers superior general-purpose computing performance, particularly for single-threaded applications. The Celeron also has a much lower TDP (35W vs 77W) and is an active product, while the i5 is end-of-life.

The average benchmark scores are close: the Celeron averages 1321, the i5 averages 1293. Both CPUs sit in the 35th percentile of all processors, and their nearest rivals are within a few points. This suggests that for a balanced workload, the two are roughly comparable. The decision ultimately comes down to the specific benchmark or application. If the workload is Cinebench-like, the i5-3570K is superior. If the workload is Geekbench-like, the Celeron G6900T is the better option. The data does not support a single overall winner, but rather a clear split based on the nature of the task.