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 G3950 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark benchmark result:2336N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):51 W

Intel Celeron G3950 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components

90%

4.1

Technical score

10%

7.7

User score

â–¼Worse than 77% of processors
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 82% of processors
7.7

User score

User score
7.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

8.7

User ratings

30%

5.4

Number of reviews

Based on 28 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.
â–¼Worse than 93% of processors
  • intel-celeron-g3950
intel-celeron-g3950

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 G3950

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

4.1
User score
User score
7.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

8.7

User ratings

30%

5.4

Number of reviews

Based on 28 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.
7.7
Popularity
Popularity
5.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 79% of models
Popularity:
Intel Celeron G3950 has a popularity score of 5.4 points, which is higher than that of 79% of products in this category.
5.4
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 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 72% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.1
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² 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
â–² 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
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 51% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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 3.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.0 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.0 GHz which is lower than that of 82.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Intel HD Graphics 610
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 610
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 610
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–² 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
51 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
51 W
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–² 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
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Celeron G3950 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    100 mm²
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 5.41x more popular
    Intel Celeron G3950 is more popular than the average processor (5.41 vs 1).
    5.41 vs 1
  • 15% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    51 W
    â–² 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
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1151
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
    LGA1151 vs FP4
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G3950 is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ 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
  • 5.41x more popular
    Intel Celeron G3950 is more popular than the average processor (5.41 vs 1).
    5.41 vs 1
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G3950 is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1151
    â–² 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    100 mm²
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
  • 77.9% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,336
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,336 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,336 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ 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
  • 76.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,120
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,120 vs 4,829
  • 26.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,842
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,842 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,842 vs 2,500
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 23.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,120
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,120 vs 1,471
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ 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
  • 3.8% lower user score
    User score
    7.7/ 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 G3950
    the average processor
    Intel Celeron G3950 has a lower user score than the average processor (7.70 vs 8.000).
    7.7 vs 8
  • 7.1% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron G3950 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.13 vs 6.6).
    6.13 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ 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
  • 77.9% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,336
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,336 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,336 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ 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
  • 76.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,120
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,120 vs 4,829
  • 26.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,842
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,842 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,842 vs 2,500
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ 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
  • 23.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,120
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,120 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW dec 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
01/01/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G3950 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
V
valid.x86.fr
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Celeron G3950 (1T)
V
valid.x86.fr
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Single-Thread Benchmark for Intel Celeron G3950
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
10/03/2018
Summary of the review
42 AMD and Intel CPUs Review: Which Processor is Best?
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
14/11/2016
Summary of the review
Intel to release overclockable Kaby Lake Core i3-7350K
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
16/04/2018
Summary of the review
Budget King: Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Review - Comparing Budget CPUs for Gaming
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
10/03/2018
Summary of the review
42 AMD and Intel CPU Review: Which Processor Is Best? - Budget CPUs Under €100
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 28 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 G3950

  • Affordable entry-level pricing for budget-conscious builds.
  • Efficient performance for basic tasks like web browsing and office productivity.
  • Capable of handling older or less demanding games at playable frame rates.
  • Low power consumption and heat generation, suitable for quiet or fanless setups.
  • Includes integrated graphics, removing the immediate need for a dedicated GPU.

What we don't like about Intel Celeron G3950

  • Limited to 2 cores and 2 threads, leading to high CPU usage during multitasking.
  • Significant stuttering and poor low-percentile performance in modern gaming.
  • Poor value proposition compared to the Pentium G4560, which offers hyperthreading for a similar price.
  • Lacks multithreading technology, limiting its longevity for future software.
  • Struggles with resource-heavy tasks like video editing or modern operating system updates.

Verdict

The Intel Celeron G3950 is a 7th Generation Kaby Lake desktop processor featuring 2 cores and 2 threads with a 3.00 GHz base clock speed and 2MB of Smart Cache. Built on a 14nm lithography, it supports up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 or DDR3L-1600/1333 RAM and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 610 with 4K support at 60Hz. Main pros include its low 51W TDP, high power efficiency for basic office tasks, and support for ECC memory and AES New Instructions. However, its primary cons are the lack of Hyper-Threading, no Turbo Boost technology, and limited performance in demanding multitasking or gaming environments compared to Intel Core i3 or higher models.

Compare Intel Celeron G3950 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 G3950 and other processors

No results found