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 G3902E review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:?N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):25 W

Intel Celeron G3902E Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 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–² Better than 51% of models
Score components

40%

5.9

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–²Better than 51% of processors
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 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–² Better than 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 71%
5.9

Technical score

Technical score
5.9/ 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–² Better than 51% of models
Score components

60%

6.2

Performance

18%

4.6

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.1

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 51%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £90
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 G3902E

    Technical score
    Technical score
    5.9/ 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–² Better than 51% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    6.2

    Performance

    18%

    4.6

    Architecture

    10%

    5.1

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    7.1

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    6.7

    Platform

    1%

    6.1

    Integrated graphics

    5.9
    Reviews score
    7.2
    List score
    ?
    Value for money
    Value for money
    7.7/ 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–² Better than 71% of models
    Score components:

    70%

    6.7

    Overall score

    30%

    10

    Price

    7.7
    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
    FCBGA1440
    This processor uses the FCBGA1440 CPU socket, which is older than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
    Chipset
    Intel 100 Series
    This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
    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, AES
    This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% 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 1.6 GHz
    This processor has a base clock of 2x1.6 GHz which is lower than that of 96.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
    PassMark multi-core score
    ?
    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
    ?
    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
    1,866 MHz
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% 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)
    25 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a TDP of 25 W which is lower than that of 75.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
    Base power (PL1)
    25 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a base power of 25 W which is lower than that of 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% 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 G3902E vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
    • 60.9% lower boost power
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
      25 W vs 64 W
    • 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
    • 44.4% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      25 W vs 45 W
    • Supports ECC memory
      This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
    • 44.4% lower TDP
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      25 W vs 45 W
    • 2.78x cheaper
      Intel Celeron G3902E is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
      £90 vs £250
    • 2.78x cheaper
      Intel Celeron G3902E is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
      £90 vs £250
    • 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.
    • 60.9% lower boost power
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
      25 W vs 64 W
    • 44.4% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      25 W vs 45 W
    • 44.4% lower TDP
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      25 W vs 45 W
    • 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
    • Narrower instruction support
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
      SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    • 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 (2x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • No configurable TDP
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • Narrower instruction support
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
      SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES 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, MPX, 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, MPX, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    • 4 years older release date
      This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
      January 2016
      2016 vs 2020
    • Older CPU socket
      This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP5).
      FCBGA1440 vs FP5
    • More limited crypto acceleration
      This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
      AES vs AES, SHA
    • 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
    • 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 (2x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x1.6 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.
    • 12 lower clock multiplier
      This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (16 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
      16 vs 28
    • 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
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
      Skylake vs Kaby Lake
    • 41.7% lower memory speed
      This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
      1,866 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
    • Limited PCIe bifurcation
      This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
      x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
    • Older DDR support
      This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
      DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
    • 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 G3902E

    • Cost-effective for extremely budget-conscious builds or basic embedded systems
    • Low power consumption (25W TDP) makes it efficient for light usage and simple cooling setups
    • Handles basic computing tasks well, such as web browsing, email, and word processing
    • Supports ECC memory, which is a rare but useful feature for its class in specific data-sensitive applications
    • Generates minimal heat, potentially allowing for fanless or quiet designs in portable or embedded devices

    What customers don't like about Intel Celeron G3902E

    • Extremely low performance with a base frequency of only 1.6 GHz and no turbo boost
    • Lacks Hyper-Threading, limiting it to 2 cores and 2 threads, which results in poor multitasking capabilities
    • Struggles with modern operating systems and background processes, often hitting 100% CPU usage during basic tasks
    • Poor gaming performance; even less-demanding titles often experience significant stuttering and low frame rates
    • Quickly becomes obsolete as software requirements for basic applications continue to increase

    Verdict

    The Intel Celeron G3902E is a dual-core, dual-thread embedded processor from the Skylake family, built on a 14nm lithography and designed for FCBGA1440 sockets. It features a base frequency of 1.60 GHz, 2 MB of Intel Smart Cache, and a low Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 25 W, making it highly energy-efficient for industrial and commercial applications. Key advantages include support for ECC memory, integrated Intel HD Graphics 510 with 4K resolution capabilities at 60Hz, and a relatively high maximum operating temperature of 100°C. However, its performance is limited by the lack of Intel Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading technologies, along with a modest clock speed that restricts it to basic or specialized embedded tasks.

    Compare Intel Celeron G3902E 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 G3902E and other processors

    No results found