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 G5900T review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark multi-core score:2192N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Celeron G5900T Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.3/10

Overall score

Score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

4.1

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

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

â–¼Worse than 93% of processors
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 81%
4.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.1/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

4.1

Mark 7.0 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 89%
?

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~ £25
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 G5900T

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
4.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.7
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
LGA1200
This processor uses the LGA1200 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.2% of processors.
Chipset
Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480
This processor supports Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 63.5% 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 3.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 81.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,192
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,192 in PassMark, which is lower than 93.2% 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
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
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
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel UHD Graphics 610
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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 78.9% 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)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Celeron G5900T vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G5900T is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 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
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G5900T is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 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
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • 80.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,192 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,192 vs 11,469
  • 79.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,088 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,088 vs 5,209
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.0 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 33% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,713 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,713 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.0 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 9% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron G5900T has worse value for money than the average processor (6.68 vs 7.3).
    6.68 vs 7.29
  • 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, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET 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
  • 80.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,192 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,192 vs 11,469
  • 79.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,088 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,088 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 33% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,713 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,713 vs 2,558
  • 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 (2x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.2 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.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 77.8% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    2 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 11.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), MPEG-2 (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), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Video reviews

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

6.0
DigitalJon
≈ estimated
10/02/2023
Hands-on test · gaming, benchmarks and everyday use
Verdict
Intel Celeron G5900T is good for browsing and light streaming, but too weak for gaming or heavier work.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron G5900T

  • Extremely affordable entry point for the LGA1200 platform
  • Low power consumption (35W TDP) making it ideal for always-on systems
  • Effective for basic office tasks, web browsing, and 1080p video streaming
  • Popular choice as a cheap 'tester' CPU for troubleshooting motherboards
  • Integrated UHD 610 graphics are sufficient for simple HTPC or NAS setups
  • Runs cool, often requiring minimal cooling solutions

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron G5900T

  • Severe performance limitations in modern gaming with frequent stuttering
  • Lacks Hyper-Threading (2 cores, 2 threads), leading to poor multitasking
  • High CPU usage (often 100%) even during simple background tasks like updates
  • Significantly outperformed by slightly more expensive Pentium or i3 alternatives
  • Inadequate for CPU-intensive productivity work like video editing or 3D rendering
  • No Turbo Boost technology, limiting its ability to handle sudden processing spikes

Verdict

The Intel Celeron G5900T is an entry-level desktop processor from the 10th Generation 'Comet Lake' family, designed for the LGA 1200 socket. It features 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock speed of 3.20 GHz, 2 MB of Intel Smart Cache, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610. Its primary advantages are its high energy efficiency, evidenced by a low 35W TDP (Thermal Design Power), and its cost-effectiveness for basic home or office tasks like web browsing and document editing. However, its main drawbacks include the lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, no Hyper-Threading support, and a dual-core configuration that is insufficient for modern gaming, heavy multitasking, or professional creative software.

Compare Intel Celeron G5900T 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 G5900T and other processors

No results found