CPU Comparison

The Intel Celeron G6900T and Intel Core i7-3770T are a study in generational contrast. The Celeron is a modern Alder Lake-S dual-core part on the LGA 1700 socket, while the i7-3770T is a legacy Ivy Bridge quad-core on LGA 1155. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 1321 for the Celeron versus 1314 for the i7, placing both at the 35th percentile of all CPUs. Yet the data shows they achieve parity through entirely different means: the Celeron leans on a newer architecture and higher single-thread performance, while the i7 leverages twice the cores and threads. The choice between them depends less on raw aggregate performance and more on which workloads you prioritize.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here spans a decade of Intel design. The Celeron G6900T is built on a 10 nm process, while the i7-3770T uses a 22 nm node. That process difference shows up in how each chip handles work. The Celeron is a 2-core, 2-thread part with no hyper-threading, whereas the i7 provides 4 cores and 8 threads. Core counts double, but the Celeron counters with a much larger per-core L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 256 KB per core on the i7. The L3 cache also favors the i7, offering 8 MB shared compared to the Celeron’s 4 MB.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the i7 is locked to DDR3. PCIe capabilities follow the same trend, the Celeron lists Gen 5, while the i7 is limited to Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Celeron carries UHD Graphics 710, while the i7 uses Intel HD 4000. The i7’s transistor count of 1,400 million on a 160 mm² die underscores its older, bulkier design, whereas the Celeron’s smaller, denser process node allows for a leaner implementation.

Both chips are locked (multiplier unlocked: false) and lack ECC memory support. The i7 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz on top of its 2.50 GHz base, while the Celeron runs at a fixed 2.80 GHz with no boost listed. TDP favors the Celeron at 35 W versus 45 W for the i7, though both are low-power desktop parts. The i7 launched in 2012 and has no production status listed; the Celeron launched in 2022 and remains active.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split cleanly by generation and workload type. The i7-3770T dominates every Cinebench test, which stresses sustained multi-core rendering. Its 4-core, 8-thread configuration gives it a decisive edge in threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i7 scores 4611 versus the Celeron’s 3117, a 32.4% advantage. The same pattern holds across all Cinebench iterations, with deltas consistently around -32% in the i7’s favor.

The Celeron G6900T wins on Geekbench, which tends to favor newer architectures and single-thread efficiency. The single-core Geekbench result is a massive 140.2% win for the Celeron, scoring 1422 versus the i7’s 592. Multi-core Geekbench also goes to the Celeron, 2460 versus 1916, a 28.4% margin. This suggests the Celeron’s Alder Lake cores are far more efficient per clock, and its higher 2.80 GHz base clock helps in single-thread scenarios where the i7’s boost clock of 3.70 GHz isn’t sustained.

The practical split: the i7 is built for content creation, rendering, and any task that can use 8 threads. The Celeron is better suited for everyday responsiveness, office work, and applications that favor single-core speed. If you’re compiling code or exporting video, the i7 wins. If you’re loading web pages or running lightweight apps, the Celeron feels snappier per the Geekbench data.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Celeron G6900T edges out the i7-3770T with an average score of 1321 versus 1314, a difference of 0.6% per the nearest rivals data.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Celeron G6900T has 2 cores and 2 threads. The i7-3770T has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: Only the Celeron G6900T supports DDR5. It also supports DDR4, while the i7-3770T is limited to DDR3.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Celeron G6900T has a TDP of 35 W, and the i7-3770T has a TDP of 45 W.

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

A: The i7-3770T wins decisively, scoring 4611 against the Celeron’s 3117, a 32.4% advantage.

Q: Which chip wins in Geekbench single-core?

A: The Celeron G6900T wins by a wide margin, scoring 1422 versus the i7’s 592, a 140.2% difference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear split: the i7-3770T wins 5 tests, the Celeron G6900T wins 2. The i7’s wins are all in Cinebench, and they are consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 464 against the Celeron’s 314, a 32.3% lead. R20 multi-core shows 1936 versus 1309, a 32.4% gap. R20 single-core is 273 versus 184, also 32.6% in the i7’s favor. R23 multi-core repeats the pattern at 4611 versus 3117, and R23 single-core is 651 versus 440, both at 32.4% deltas.

The Celeron’s wins are more dramatic on a percentage basis. Geekbench single-core is its standout: 1422 versus 592, a 140.2% margin. That’s more than double the i7’s score. Geekbench multi-core is also a Celeron win, 2460 versus 1916, a 28.4% lead. The interesting note is that the Celeron loses every Cinebench test but wins Geekbench multi-core outright. This implies the Geekbench test suite is less sensitive to core count and more sensitive to architectural efficiency, where the Celeron’s Alder Lake cores excel. The i7’s older Ivy Bridge cores simply can’t match per-thread performance, even with a 3.70 GHz boost clock.

The magnitude of the single-core Geekbench gap is worth emphasizing. A 140.2% delta means the Celeron is more than twice as fast in that specific metric. Conversely, the i7’s Cinebench wins are tightly clustered around 32%, which reflects its consistent multi-thread advantage. These are not close contests; each chip has a clear domain.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward recommendation based on workload. If your priority is multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or any task that scales with cores, the i7-3770T is the clear pick. Its Cinebench lead of roughly 32% across every test is decisive, and the 4-core, 8-thread setup is a proven formula for production work. The i7’s 8 MB L3 cache also helps in cache-sensitive workloads.

If you need single-thread responsiveness, newer platform features, or memory flexibility, the Celeron G6900T is the better choice. Its Geekbench single-core score is more than double the i7’s, and it supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the i7 is stuck on DDR3. The Celeron also has PCIe Gen 5 support versus Gen 3 on the i7, which future-proofs storage and GPU connectivity. Its 35 W TDP is lower, making it easier to cool in compact systems.

Neither chip is a performance champion, both sit at the 35th percentile of all CPUs. But they serve different masters. The i7-3770T is a legacy workhorse for threaded tasks; the Celeron G6900T is a modern entry-level part for everyday computing. The i7’s active production status is not listed, while the Celeron is still active, which may matter for warranty and availability. Given the i7’s lack of a listed launch MSRP and the Celeron’s $42 launch MSRP, the Celeron carries a clear platform advantage for new builds.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Celeron G6900T | Intel Core i7-3770T |

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

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 2 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1155 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 160 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR3 |

| PCIe | Gen 5 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 | Intel HD 4000 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2012-04-28 |

| Launch MSRP | $42 | Not listed |

| Production Status | Active | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRL68 | SR0PQ |