OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Celeron G3900TE review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£120PassMark multi-core score:1850N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Celeron G3900TE Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Celeron G3900TE
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 84% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.2

Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 95%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-celeron-g3900te
  • intel-celeron-g3900te
intel-celeron-g3900te
intel-celeron-g3900te
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
    Loading category ranking...

    Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron G3900TE

    Technical score
    Technical score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
    Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
    Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    2.5

    Performance

    18%

    4.2

    Architecture

    10%

    4.9

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    6.8

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    7.2

    Platform

    1%

    6.1

    Integrated graphics

    3.6
    Reviews score
    7.2
    List score
    ?
    Value for money
    Value for money
    7.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
    When it matters
    When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Score components:

    70%

    5.8

    Overall score

    30%

    9.9

    Price

    7.0
    Processor type
    embedded
    This processor belongs to the embedded processor class, which is less advanced than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.9% of processors.
    CPU socket
    LGA1151
    This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
    Chipset
    ?
    CPU architecture
    x86-64
    This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2
    This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 87% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
    Show more
    N. of physical cores
    2
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
    CPU threads
    2
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
    CPU boost clock speed
    N/A
    CPU base clock speed
    2x 2.3 GHz
    This processor has a base clock of 2x2.3 GHz which is lower than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
    PassMark multi-core score
    1,850
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor scores 1,850 in PassMark, which is lower than 95.6% of processors.
    Show more
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
    Foundry
    Intel 14 nm
    This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
    L3 cache
    2 MB
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has an L3 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
    Show more
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4
    This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 78.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
    Maximum memory speed
    2,133 MHz
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    ?
    Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
    N/A
    Maximum memory capacity
    64 GB
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
    Show more
    Integrated graphics
    yes
    This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
    Intel HD Graphics 510
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 510
    This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 510 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 79.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.8% of processors.
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    350 MHz
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
    This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 53.8% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
    Show more
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    35 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
    Base power (PL1)
    35 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
    Boost power (PL2)
    35 W
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a boost power of 35 W which is lower than that of 76.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.9% of processors.
    Tau (power duration limit)
    N/A
    Configurable TDP
    no
    This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
    Show more

    Intel Celeron G3900TE vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
    • 42.9% smaller die size
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (101 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      101 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • 45.3% lower boost power
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
      35 W vs 64 W
    • Supports ECC memory
      This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
    • Modern CPU socket
      This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
      LGA1151 vs FP5
    • 22.2% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      35 W vs 45 W
    • Modern CPU socket
      This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
      LGA1151 vs FP5
    • 42.9% smaller die size
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (101 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      101 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • Supports ECC memory
      This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
    • 45.3% lower boost power
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
      35 W vs 64 W
    • 22.2% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      35 W vs 45 W
    • 90.1% lower multi-core score
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (514 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      514 vs 5,209
    • 83.9% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,850 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      1,850 vs 11,469
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • 66.5% lower single-core score
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (514 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      514 vs 1,535
    • 41.6% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,494 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      1,494 vs 2,558
    • 47.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (258 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      258 vs 490
    • 6 fewer CPU threads
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      2 vs 8
    • No configurable TDP
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 3.6% worse value for money
      Intel Celeron G3900TE has worse value for money than the average processor (7.03 vs 7.3).
      7.03 vs 7.29
    • Narrower instruction support
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
      SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    • Weaker security extensions
      This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    • 5 years older release date
      This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
      December 2015
      2015 vs 2020
    • More limited crypto acceleration
      This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
      AES vs AES, SHA
    • 90.1% lower multi-core score
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (514 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      514 vs 5,209
    • 83.9% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,850 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      1,850 vs 11,469
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • 66.5% lower single-core score
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (514 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      514 vs 1,535
    • 41.6% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,494 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      1,494 vs 2,558
    • 47.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (258 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      258 vs 490
    • 6 fewer CPU threads
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      2 vs 8
    • Lower base clock
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • 2 fewer performance cores
      This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
      2 vs 4
    • No simultaneous multithreading
      This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
    • 45.9% less L3 per core
      This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
      1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
    • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
      This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
      0.5 MB vs 3 MB
    • 16.7% larger process node
      This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
      14 nm vs 12 nm
    • 77.8% smaller L3 cache
      This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
      2 MB vs 9 MB
    • 50% less L2 per core
      This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
      0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
    • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
      This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
      128 KB vs 384 KB
    • 71.7% fewer transistors
      This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
      1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
      Skylake vs Kaby Lake
    • 33.3% lower memory speed
      This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
      2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
    • 27.3% lower memory bandwidth
      This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
      34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
    • Older DDR support
      This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
      DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
    • Limited PCIe bifurcation
      This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
      x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
    • Narrower media codec support
      This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
      H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
    • Inferior integrated GPU
      This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 510 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
      Intel HD Graphics 510 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
    • 50% fewer GPU execution units
      This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
      12 vs 24
    • No configurable TDP
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

    Third-party reviews

    What customers like about Intel Celeron G3900TE

    • High energy efficiency with a low Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 35W
    • Reliable and stable performance for basic office productivity, email, and web browsing
    • Supports Error-Correcting Code (ECC) memory, which is uncommon for entry-level consumer chips
    • Provides an affordable, economical entry point for the Skylake platform
    • Handles 1080p media playback well and supports 4K at 60Hz via DisplayPort

    What customers don't like about Intel Celeron G3900TE

    • Very poor gaming performance; struggles with modern 3D titles and unpredictable frame rates
    • Weak multitasking capabilities due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads
    • Significantly longer loading times for applications compared to more powerful CPUs
    • Lacks Intel Turbo Boost technology, resulting in a fixed, relatively low clock speed of 2.3 GHz
    • Small cache size (2MB L3) limits responsiveness under heavy system loads

    Verdict

    The Intel Celeron G3900TE is an embedded dual-core processor from the 6th Generation Skylake family, operating at a base frequency of 2.30 GHz with a 2 MB Smart Cache. Designed for the LGA 1151 socket, it features integrated Intel HD Graphics 510, supporting 4K resolution at 60Hz and up to three simultaneous displays. Its primary advantages include a very low 35W TDP for energy-efficient operation, support for up to 64 GB of DDR4/DDR3L memory, and compatibility with ECC memory for enhanced reliability in specialized environments. However, its performance is limited by the lack of Intel Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading technologies, making it unsuitable for demanding multitasking or modern gaming.

    Compare Intel Celeron G3900TE with other processors

    1Product to compare no. 1
    VS
    2Product to compare no. 2
    VS
    3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

    Graphic comparison of Intel Celeron G3900TE and other processors

    No results found