OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Celeron G3930 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£9PassMark benchmark result:2248N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):51 W

Intel Celeron G3930 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.8

Overall score

Score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

90%

4.2

Technical score

10%

9.4

User score

▼Worse than 68% of processors
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

5.9

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 78% of processors
9.4

User score

User score
9.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

70%

9.2

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on 1,132 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
★Better than 94% of processors
  • intel-celeron-g3930
intel-celeron-g3930

Best prices

*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 G3930

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

5.9

Integrated Graphics

4.2
User score
User score
9.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

70%

9.2

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on 1,132 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
9.4
Popularity
Popularity
10.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Popularity:
Intel Celeron G3930 has a popularity score of 10 points, which is higher than that of 91.9% of products in this category.
10
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

4.8

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.3
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1151
CPU socket
LGA1151
▲ Better than 61% of models
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 60.7% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 100 Series, Intel 200 Series
Chipset
Intel 100 Series, Intel 200 Series
▲ Better than 50% of models
This processor supports Intel 100 Series, Intel 200 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 50% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
CPU threads
2
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94% of processors and equal to 5.9% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.9 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.9 GHz
▼ Worse than 84% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 83.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
▼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
2 MB
L3 cache
2 MB
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 90.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 77.7% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
▼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 610
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 610
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 610 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 77.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Integrated GPU execution units
12
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
▲ Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP8 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP8 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 80% of models
This processor supports VP8 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 80% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
51 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
51 W
▼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 51 W which is higher than that of 61.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
51 W
Base power (PL1)
51 W
▼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 51 W which is higher than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
51 W
Boost power (PL2)
51 W
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 51 W which is lower than that of 66.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Celeron G3930 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    ▲ Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • 10x more popular
    Intel Celeron G3930 is more popular than the average processor (10 vs 1).
    10 vs 1
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    126 mm²
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 17.8% higher user score
    User score
    9.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Celeron G3930
    the average processor
    Intel Celeron G3930 has a higher user score than the average processor (9.43 vs 8.000).
    9.43 vs 8
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 27.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G3930 is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 10x more popular
    Intel Celeron G3930 is more popular than the average processor (10 vs 1).
    10 vs 1
  • 17.8% higher user score
    User score
    9.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Celeron G3930
    the average processor
    Intel Celeron G3930 has a higher user score than the average processor (9.43 vs 8.000).
    9.43 vs 8
  • 27.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G3930 is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1151
    ▲ Better than 61% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
    LGA1151 vs FP4
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    126 mm²
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    ▲ Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 15% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    51 W
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (51 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    51 W vs 60 W
  • 78.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,248
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,248 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,248 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 78.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,026
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,026 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,026 vs 4,829
  • 29.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,762
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,762 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,762 vs 2,500
  • 30.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,026
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,026 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,026 vs 1,471
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    ▼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    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
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AES
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    January 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 78.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,248
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,248 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,248 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 78.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,026
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,026 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,026 vs 4,829
  • 29.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,762
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,762 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,762 vs 2,500
  • 30.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,026
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,026 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,026 vs 1,471
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    ▼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    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
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.9 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 75% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    2 MB
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    2 MB vs 8 MB
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16
    ▼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    VP8 (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 610
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 610 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 610 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 13.3% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    51 W
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (51 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    51 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

B
browser.geekbench.com
Q1 2017
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G3930 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
Q1 2017
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G3930 BX80677G3930 - CPU UserBenchmarks
O
openbenchmarking.org
Q1 2017
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G3930 Benchmarks, Linux Performance
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G3930 @ 2.90GHz - CPU Benchmarks
C
computerbase.de
11/05/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Review: Faster than its Predecessor (Comparison with Celeron G3930)
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
13/01/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium G4560 Review: Up to 97 Percent More Performance (Incl. Celeron G3930 Benchmarks)
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
25/08/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G3930 Review: Not necessarily worth it
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
03/07/2017
Summary of the review
Desktop Best Buy Guide - July 2017
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
10/03/2018
Summary of the review
42 AMD and Intel CPUs Review: What is the Best Processor? - Low-end Under 100 Euros
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 1,132 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Celeron G3930

  • Excellent value for money for budget-conscious builds
  • Highly efficient for basic office tasks like Word, Excel, and web browsing
  • Operates at very low temperatures, even under load
  • Low power consumption (51W TDP) makes it ideal for energy-efficient setups
  • Popular and reliable choice for cryptocurrency mining rigs
  • Integrated Intel HD 610 graphics support 4K content playback
  • Includes a dependable and quiet stock cooling solution

What we don't like about Intel Celeron G3930

  • Not suitable for modern or CPU-intensive gaming
  • Lacks Hyper-Threading and AVX2 support, limiting performance in complex workloads
  • Dual-core architecture can lead to 100% CPU usage with multiple browser tabs or background tasks
  • No Turbo Boost frequency, strictly capped at 2.9 GHz
  • Outperformed significantly by similarly priced older i3 or i5 used processors
  • Locked multiplier prevents any meaningful overclocking

Verdict

The Intel Celeron G3930 is a budget-friendly 7th Gen desktop processor based on the Kaby Lake architecture, featuring 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock speed of 2.90 GHz and a 2 MB Smart Cache. Built on a 14nm process with a 51W TDP, it includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 610 and supports up to 64 GB of DDR4-2133/2400 or DDR3L-1333/1600 memory. Its primary advantages are its low power consumption, cost-effectiveness for basic office tasks or web browsing, and support for ECC memory. However, it lacks Intel Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading, and its limited dual-core performance makes it unsuitable for modern gaming, heavy multitasking, or CPU-intensive applications.

Compare Intel Celeron G3930 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 G3930 and other processors

No results found