CPU Comparison

Intel Celeron G6900TE and Intel Core i5-4330M represent two very different eras of Intel silicon, yet benchmark results place them in remarkably close competition. The data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the older mobile Core i5 across every single Cinebench test, with the Celeron trailing by margins of roughly 1.2% to 1.6% in all workloads. Despite the G6900TE's newer architecture and process node, the i5-4330M's higher clock speeds and additional threads prove decisive in these specific benchmarks, making this a matchup defined by incremental differences rather than generational leaps.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite consists of five Cinebench tests, and the Intel Core i5-4330M wins all five. The margins are tight but consistent, suggesting a systematic advantage rather than test-specific noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-4330M scores 274 against the G6900TE's 270, a delta of -1.5% from the Celeron's perspective. The same -1.5% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5-4330M posts 1145 versus 1128. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with scores of 2727 and 2687 respectively, again a -1.5% difference.

Single-threaded performance tells a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-4330M edges ahead with 161 points against 159, a -1.2% delta. The largest gap emerges in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i5-4330M scores 385 versus 379, a -1.6% delta. Across all tests, the i5-4330M's advantage ranges from a hair over one percent to just over one and a half percent. These are not the kind of margins that would show up in casual use, but they are consistent enough to indicate a real performance edge.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture, though they also highlight how close these parts truly are. The G6900TE averages 925 across its benchmark suite, while the i5-4330M averages 938. The nearest rivals for each CPU further contextualize these numbers. The G6900TE sits alongside the Intel Core i3-4350T (avg score 926, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core i5-4288U (927, -0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-870 (928, -0.3%). The i5-4330M, meanwhile, is bracketed by the Intel Core i3-8145U (941, -0.4%), the Intel Core i7-2715QE (942, -0.4%), the AMD Athlon X4 860K (943, -0.5%), and the AMD A8-7670K (944, -0.7%). Both processors sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the lower performance tier overall, but the i5-4330M holds a slim but measurable lead.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-4330M wins every single benchmark head-to-head. For users who prioritize raw Cinebench performance, the choice is clear. The i5-4330M delivers higher scores in both single-core and multi-core tests, with the largest margin being a -1.6% delta in Cinebench R23 single-core. While no individual margin is large, the consistency across all five tests indicates a genuine performance advantage rather than a measurement anomaly.

That said, the differences are small enough that other factors could reasonably tip a purchasing decision. The G6900TE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700 with active production status and a 2022 release date, while the i5-4330M is a mobile part on Intel Socket G3 from 2013 with no listed production status. The G6900TE also offers DDR4 and DDR5 memory support plus PCIe Gen 5, versus the i5-4330M's DDR3-only support. For a user building a new desktop system, the G6900TE's platform advantages might outweigh a 1.5% benchmark deficit. For someone comparing raw compute capability in these specific workloads, the i5-4330M is the stronger performer. The verdict from the benchmarks alone: the i5-4330M wins on performance, but the G6900TE wins on platform modernity and availability.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different architectural eras, which makes their close benchmark scores particularly interesting. The Intel Celeron G6900TE is built on Alder Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core i5-4330M uses the older Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process. The G6900TE has 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and no boost clock listed. The i5-4330M also has 2 cores but offers 4 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading, with a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. This clock speed advantage likely explains much of the i5-4330M's edge, as does its additional thread count.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The G6900TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-4330M has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The G6900TE's larger per-core L2 cache reflects its newer architecture, but the i5-4330M's smaller caches are offset by higher clocks and more threads. The i5-4330M also has a stated transistor count of 1,400 million and a die size of 118 mm², while the G6900TE's transistor count and die size are not listed.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The G6900TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with ECC memory not supported. The i5-4330M supports only DDR3, with no memory bus or bandwidth information provided. The G6900TE also lists PCIe Gen 5 support, while the i5-4330M has no PCIe information. Integrated graphics differ as well: the G6900TE has UHD Graphics 710, while the i5-4330M has Intel HD 5000. The G6900TE is a desktop part, and the i5-4330M is a mobile part, though the benchmark scores suggest the mobile part holds its own.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU had a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-4330M had a higher average benchmark score of 938, compared to 925 for the Intel Celeron G6900TE.

Q: Did the G6900TE win any of the five head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: No. The i5-4330M won all five tests, with the G6900TE's deltas ranging from -1.2% in Cinebench R20 single-core to -1.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ between the two?

A: Both have 2 cores, but the i5-4330M has 4 threads while the G6900TE has 2 threads. The i5-4330M also has a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, plus a 3.80 GHz boost clock that the G6900TE lacks.

Q: What memory types does each CPU support?

A: The G6900TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, while the i5-4330M supports only DDR3.

Q: Which CPU has a newer release date?

A: The G6900TE was released on 2022-01-03, while the i5-4330M was released on 2013-08-31.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The G6900TE is built on a 10 nm process, while the i5-4330M uses a 22 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-4330M wins in every benchmark category measured. It outperforms the G6900TE in Cinebench R15 multi-core (274 vs 270), Cinebench R20 multi-core (1145 vs 1128), Cinebench R20 single-core (161 vs 159), Cinebench R23 multi-core (2727 vs 2687), and Cinebench R23 single-core (385 vs 379). For any workload that resembles these Cinebench tests, the i5-4330M is the superior choice based on raw performance scores. Its higher base clock, boost clock, and additional threads give it a consistent edge that the G6900TE cannot overcome despite its newer architecture.

The Intel Celeron G6900TE wins on platform features and modernity. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes PCIe Gen 5, and is built on a 10 nm process compared to the i5-4330M's 22 nm node. The G6900TE is also an active production part on Intel Socket 1700, making it available for current desktop builds, whereas the i5-4330M is a mobile part on the older Intel Socket G3 with no listed production status. The G6900TE's newer integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 710) and larger per-core L2 cache (1.25 MB per core vs 256 KB per core) are additional advantages, though they do not translate into benchmark wins in this suite.

In practical terms, the i5-4330M is the pick for users who need the last bit of Cinebench performance from a legacy mobile platform. The G6900TE is the pick for users building a new desktop system on a modern socket, where its memory flexibility, PCIe Gen 5 support, and active production status carry more weight than a 1.5% benchmark deficit. The data shows a clear performance winner and a clear platform winner, and the right choice depends entirely on which category matters more to the user.