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 G4930T review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:2287N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Celeron G4930T Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

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

▼Worse than 79% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 60%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 88%
?

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
▼
<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~ £35
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 G4930T

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

3.9
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.2
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% 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
Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310
This processor supports Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 57.3% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% 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
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% 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 3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3 GHz which is lower than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,287
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,287 in PassMark, which is lower than 92.2% 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
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
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.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 610
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 610 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 56.4% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% 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
VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 52.6% 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)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 25 W
Show more

Intel Celeron G4930T vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 12 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (88 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    88 °C vs 100 °C
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    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
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G4930T is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G4930T is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 12 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (88 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    88 °C vs 100 °C
  • 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
  • 91.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (464 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    464 vs 5,209
  • 80.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,287 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,287 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
  • 69.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (464 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    464 vs 1,535
  • 30.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,773 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,773 vs 2,558
  • 35.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (314 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    314 vs 490
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2 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, 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, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 91.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (464 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    464 vs 5,209
  • 80.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,287 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,287 vs 11,469
  • 69.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (464 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    464 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 30.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,773 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,773 vs 2,558
  • 35.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (314 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    314 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
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 20% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 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

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron G4930T

  • Low power consumption (35W TDP) makes it ideal for quiet, low-heat builds
  • Excellent value for specialized tasks like crypto mining rigs and home NAS servers
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610 eliminates the need for a dedicated GPU in basic office setups
  • Stays very cool under load, often reported between 28-30°C in well-ventilated server cases
  • Reliable for simple web browsing, email, and 1080p video streaming

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron G4930T

  • Poor multitasking performance due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads (no Hyper-Threading)
  • Unsuitable for modern gaming; users report stuttering even in lightweight titles like Fortnite
  • Struggles with resource-heavy OS environments, sometimes showing 100% CPU usage during basic Windows updates
  • Very limited L3 cache (2MB) slows down data-intensive applications
  • Obsolete for content creation tasks like video editing or heavy Photoshop use

Verdict

The Intel Celeron G4930T is a 9th Gen Coffee Lake Refresh desktop processor designed for entry-level tasks and basic computing. It features 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock frequency of 3.00 GHz, 2 MB of Smart Cache, and support for up to 64 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2400 memory. A key characteristic is its low 35W TDP, making it highly energy-efficient for small form factor builds, and it includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610 with 4K support at 60Hz. Main pros include its low power consumption, support for ECC memory, and affordability for simple office or home server use. However, its primary cons are the lack of Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost technology, which significantly limits multitasking and performance for demanding modern applications or gaming.

Compare Intel Celeron G4930T 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 G4930T and other processors

No results found