Intel Celeron G6900TE vs Intel Core i3-1110G4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-1110G4 wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the database. Out of five Cinebench comparisons, the i3-1110G4 takes all five, while the Celeron G6900TE records zero wins.

Looking at multi-core performance, the gap is consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-1110G4 scores 322 against the Celeron's 270, a delta of -16.1% from the Celeron's perspective. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 1344 versus 1128, again -16.1%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the same story with 3202 against 2687, also -16.1%. The i3-1110G4 is roughly 16% ahead in every multi-core workload tested, which suggests a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core results tell a similar tale, though the margins are slightly different. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-1110G4 posts 189 versus the Celeron's 159, a -15.9% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 452 versus 379, a -16.2% delta. The i3-1110G4 also has a recorded Cinebench R15 single-core score of 160.4, while the Celeron has no single-core R15 entry in the database.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The i3-1110G4 averages 945 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Celeron G6900TE averages 925. That is a 20-point gap, roughly 2.2% overall. Both processors sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy similar tiers in the broader market, but within that tier the i3-1110G4 is consistently ahead.

Context from nearest rivals helps frame these numbers. The Celeron G6900TE's closest competitor is the AMD FX-4320, which trails by 0.4%, and the Intel Core i3-4350T, which leads by 0.2%. The i3-1110G4's nearest rival is the AMD A8-7670K at 0.1% ahead, with the Intel Xeon X5560 and Intel Pentium Gold G5400T both 0.1% behind. Neither chip is dramatically better than its immediate peers, but the i3-1110G4 sits slightly higher in the average-score ordering.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core i3-1110G4 wins all five head-to-head tests recorded. The Celeron G6900TE wins zero. The i3-1110G4 leads in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench R20 and R23, plus Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The i3-1110G4 is consistently about 16% faster in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the delta is -16.1% in each case from the Celeron's perspective.

Q: Is the single-core advantage the same size?

A: Nearly. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a -15.9% delta, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows -16.2%. The i3-1110G4 also has an R15 single-core score of 160.4, which the Celeron does not have recorded.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Celeron G6900TE's average score of 925 is within 0.4% of its nearest competitors, including the AMD FX-4320 at 921 and the Intel Core i3-4350T at 926. The i3-1110G4's average of 945 puts it within 0.1% of the AMD A8-7670K at 944 and the Intel Xeon X5560 at 946.

Q: Do both processors occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes. Both the Celeron G6900TE and the i3-1110G4 are recorded at the 25th percentile among all CPUs in the database. They are in the same broad tier, but the i3-1110G4 sits at the top of that tier.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The i3-1110G4 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Celeron G6900TE has no boost clock listed in the database, only a base clock of 2.40 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architecture families. The Celeron G6900TE is built on Alder Lake, specifically the Alder Lake-S desktop variant, while the i3-1110G4 uses Tiger Lake, specifically Tiger Lake-U for mobile platforms. Both are fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node, so the lithography is identical.

The core designs differ. The Celeron uses Alder Lake-S silicon with 2 cores and 2 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. The i3-1110G4 also has 2 physical cores but supports 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, effectively doubling its logical execution resources. This thread advantage likely explains part of the consistent multi-core lead.

Cache hierarchies differ in size. The Celeron has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The i3-1110G4 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The i3-1110G4 therefore has more L1 per core and 50% more L3 overall, which can help with data reuse and latency-sensitive workloads.

Memory support diverges. The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the i3-1110G4 only supports DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The i3-1110G4 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Celeron has no bandwidth figure listed.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation. The Celeron supports PCIe Gen 5, while the i3-1110G4 supports Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Celeron ships with UHD Graphics 710, while the i3-1110G4 uses Iris Xe Graphics G4. The Iris Xe branding typically indicates a more capable iGPU, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks.

The sockets and market segments are unrelated. The Celeron is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the i3-1110G4 is a mobile chip on Intel BGA 1598. The Celeron has a part number of SRL68, while the i3-1110G4 has no part number recorded.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Core counts are the same at 2 physical cores, but thread counts differ: the Celeron has 2 threads, the i3-1110G4 has 4. Base clocks are very different: the Celeron runs at 2.40 GHz, while the i3-1110G4 runs at 1800.00 MHz (1.80 GHz). The i3-1110G4 adds a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the Celeron has no boost clock listed.

Thermal design power is a major split. The Celeron G6900TE is rated at 35 W TDP, while the i3-1110G4 is rated at 15 W TDP. Despite consuming less power on paper, the i3-1110G4 posts higher scores across the board. Socket types are entirely different: Intel Socket 1700 for the Celeron versus Intel BGA 1598 for the i3-1110G4.

Architecture and codename differ: Alder Lake-S versus Tiger Lake-U. The generation field lists the Celeron as "Celeron (Alder Lake-S)" and the i3-1110G4 as "Core i3 (Willow Cove-U)". Release dates also differ: the Celeron launched on 2022-01-03, while the i3-1110G4 launched on 2020-09-01.

Memory support differs as noted: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Celeron, DDR4 only for the i3-1110G4. The i3-1110G4 has a memory bandwidth figure of 59.7 GB/s, while the Celeron has none recorded. PCIe generation differs: Gen 5 versus Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics units differ: UHD Graphics 710 versus Iris Xe Graphics G4. Market segments differ: Desktop versus Mobile. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither is multiplier-unlocked.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw performance: the Intel Core i3-1110G4. It wins every benchmark test in the head-to-head comparison, with margins around 16% in both single-core and multi-core workloads. Its average benchmark score of 945 is higher than the Celeron's 925, and it sits at the same 25th percentile overall, meaning it achieves better results without moving to a higher performance tier.

The i3-1110G4 also brings more threads, a boost clock, a larger L3 cache, and a higher per-core L1 cache. It does all of this at a 15 W TDP, which is less than half the Celeron's 35 W rating. From a pure performance-per-watt standpoint, the i3-1110G4 is clearly superior in the recorded data.

However, the Celeron G6900TE is not without its own advantages. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the i3-1110G4 is limited to DDR4. The Celeron supports PCIe Gen 5, a generation ahead of the i3-1110G4's Gen 4. It is a desktop socketed part on Socket 1700, which allows for easier upgrades and platform flexibility compared to the soldered BGA 1598 on the i3-1110G4. Its release date is later, which may matter for platform longevity.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision hinges on platform and use case. If the priority is maximum compute performance, especially in threaded workloads, the i3-1110G4 is the pick based on every benchmark in the database. If the priority is a desktop platform with newer memory and PCIe standards, the Celeron G6900TE offers those features, though at a meaningful performance cost.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i3-1110G4 wins on every measured performance metric. In multi-core tests, it leads by 16.1% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. In single-core tests, it leads by roughly 16% in R20 and R23. It also has a recorded R15 single-core score, which the Celeron lacks entirely. The i3-1110G4's average benchmark score is 20 points higher, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.1%, indicating a solid position among its peers.

Intel Celeron G6900TE wins on platform flexibility. It uses the desktop Socket 1700, which is a replaceable socket rather than a soldered BGA package. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving builders a choice of memory generations. It supports PCIe Gen 5, which is a generation newer than the i3-1110G4's Gen 4. Its release date of 2022-01-03 is later than the i3-1110G4's 2020-09-01, which may matter for those seeking a more recent platform.

The i3-1110G4 also wins on efficiency. Despite a 15 W TDP versus the Celeron's 35 W, it posts higher scores in every test. This makes it the better choice for thermally constrained or power-sensitive designs. The Celeron's 35 W rating suggests it is intended for systems where power draw is less of a concern.

The Celeron wins on memory and expansion features, but not on compute. If a build requires DDR5 support or PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, the Celeron G6900TE is the only option between the two. Those features come with a performance penalty of about 16% across the board, which the data shows clearly.

For mobile or compact systems, the i3-1110G4 is the answer. Its BGA 1598 socket and 15 W TDP align with thin-and-light designs, and its Iris Xe Graphics G4 is a more capable integrated GPU on paper than the Celeron's UHD Graphics 710, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded to quantify the difference.

For desktop builds prioritizing modern memory and PCIe standards, the Celeron G6900TE has the edge. The Socket 1700 platform is upgrade-friendly, and the dual memory support (DDR4 and DDR5) provides flexibility. The performance gap is real, but it is consistent and predictable at roughly 16%, which a builder can account for when selecting workloads.