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 G5925 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£45PassMark benchmark result:2836N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):58 W

Intel Celeron G5925 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.1

Overall score

Score
4.1/ 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 86% of models
Score components

90%

3.6

Technical score

10%

8.3

User score

â–¼Worse than 86% of processors
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 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 95% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

3.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 95% of processors
8.3

User score

User score
8.3/ 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–² Better than 83% of models
Score components

70%

8.8

User ratings

30%

7.0

Number of reviews

Based on 93 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–²Better than 83% of processors
  • intel-celeron-g5925
  • intel-celeron-g5925
  • intel-celeron-g5925
  • intel-celeron-g5925
  • intel-celeron-g5925
intel-celeron-g5925
intel-celeron-g5925
intel-celeron-g5925
intel-celeron-g5925
intel-celeron-g5925

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 G5925

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 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 95% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

3.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

3.6
User score
User score
8.3/ 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–² Better than 83% of models
Score components

70%

8.8

User ratings

30%

7.0

Number of reviews

Based on 93 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.
8.3
Popularity
Popularity
7.0/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Popularity:
Intel Celeron G5925 has a popularity score of 7 points, which is higher than that of 83.6% of products in this category.
7.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

60%

4.1

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.9
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
LGA1200
CPU socket
LGA1200
â–² Better than 70% of models
This processor uses the LGA1200 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
Chipset
Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480
Chipset
Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480
â–² Better than 64% of models
This processor supports Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 63.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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 3.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 76.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% 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
64 KB
L1 cache
64 KB
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 64 KB which is smaller than that of 99.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 58.3% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 61.9% of processors and equal to 21.4% 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 UHD Graphics 610
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 610
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 610
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 610 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 57.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
â–² Better than 72% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 72.1% of processors and equal to 2.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
58 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
58 W
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 58 W which is higher than that of 68.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
58 W
Base power (PL1)
58 W
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 58 W which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
58 W
Boost power (PL2)
58 W
â–² Better than 51% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 58 W which is lower than that of 51.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
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 G5925 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.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • 6.95x more popular
    Intel Celeron G5925 is more popular than the average processor (6.95 vs 1).
    6.95 vs 1
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1200
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP4).
    LGA1200 vs FP4
  • 3.5% higher user score
    User score
    8.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Celeron G5925
    the average processor
    Intel Celeron G5925 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.28 vs 8.000).
    8.28 vs 8
  • 5.56x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G5925 is cheaper than the average processor (£45 vs £250).
    £45 vs £250
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 6.95x more popular
    Intel Celeron G5925 is more popular than the average processor (6.95 vs 1).
    6.95 vs 1
  • 3.5% higher user score
    User score
    8.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Celeron G5925
    the average processor
    Intel Celeron G5925 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.28 vs 8.000).
    8.28 vs 8
  • 5.56x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G5925 is cheaper than the average processor (£45 vs £250).
    £45 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1200
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP4).
    LGA1200 vs FP4
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 2x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • 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.
  • 84.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    755
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (755 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    755 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 73.2% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,836
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,836 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,836 vs 10,572.5
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 73.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    739
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (739 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    739 vs 2,791
  • 48.7% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    755
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (755 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    755 vs 1,471
  • 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.
  • 11.9% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron G5925 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.86 vs 6.6).
    5.86 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    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).
    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
  • 84.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    755
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (755 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    755 vs 4,829
  • 73.2% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,836
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,836 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,836 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
  • 73.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    739
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (739 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    739 vs 2,791
  • 48.7% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    755
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (755 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    755 vs 1,471
  • 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 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.
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 10.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,239
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,239 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,239 vs 2,500
  • 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.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 83.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    64 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (64 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    64 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2666 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    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
  • 9.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    41.6 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    41.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 9.1% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,666 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 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.
  • 28.9% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    58 W
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W
  • 28.9% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    58 W
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    58 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

C
cpubenchmark.net
Updated Daily
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G5925 @ 3.60GHz - CPU Benchmarks
V
valid.x86.fr
02/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Multi-Core Benchmark for Intel Celeron G5925 (2T) - Validation
(Translated)Show original
V
valid.x86.fr
03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron G5925 CPU-Z Benchmark (Single-Thread) - Performance Validation
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwarecooking.fr
12/10/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-10100F: A new quad-core (Comparison including the Celeron G5925)
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/01/2025
Summary of the review
Processor Benchmarks 2025 - All Our CPU Test Results (Including G5925)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 93 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 G5925

  • Extremely affordable, making it one of the cheapest processors for budget builds
  • Excellent for basic office automation, web browsing, and 1080p media playback
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610 eliminates the need for a dedicated video card in simple setups
  • Highly energy efficient with a 58W TDP, allowing for silent operation and low-power cooling
  • Supports a surprisingly large amount of memory, up to 128GB of DDR4 RAM

What we don't like about Intel Celeron G5925

  • Weak multitasking performance due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads without hyper-threading
  • Poor gaming capabilities; modern titles are often unplayable or suffer from severe stuttering
  • Lacks Intel Turbo Boost technology, meaning it cannot increase its clock speed under heavy load
  • Built on an outdated 14nm process compared to more modern 7nm or smaller competitor chips
  • Does not support newer memory standards like DDR5, limiting future upgrade paths

Verdict

The Intel Celeron G5925 is an entry-level 10th-generation 'Comet Lake' desktop processor designed for basic office tasks and web browsing. Utilizing a 14nm lithography, it features 2 cores and 2 threads with a 3.6 GHz base clock speed and a 4MB L3 Smart Cache. It supports up to 128GB of dual-channel DDR4-2666 memory and includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610, which supports 4K resolution at 60Hz across up to three displays. Main advantages include its high power efficiency with a 58W TDP, support for Intel Optane Memory, and budget-friendly pricing for simple productivity builds. However, its significant cons include a lack of Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost technologies, which severely limits its multitasking and high-load performance compared to Core-series alternatives.

Compare Intel Celeron G5925 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 G5925 and other processors

No results found