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 G6900 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark multi-core score:4475N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):46 W

Intel Celeron G6900 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 9 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Celeron G6900
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 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 85% of models
Score components

40%

5.2

Technical score

25%

5.2

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

5.2

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 85% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 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 58% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

6.1

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.8

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 58%
5.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.2/ 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 74% of models

5.2

Mark 6.7 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.3

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 8 video reviews, each 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 74%
?

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
  • intel-celeron-g6900
  • intel-celeron-g6900
  • intel-celeron-g6900
  • intel-celeron-g6900
intel-celeron-g6900
intel-celeron-g6900
intel-celeron-g6900
intel-celeron-g6900
Where to buy
*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.

What reviewers say about the Intel Celeron G6900

Based on 1 · 9

Reviewers agree it handles everyday computing well, but the low core count holds it back, and gaming and value split opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron G6900

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 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 58% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

6.1

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.8

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

5.2
Reviews score
5.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.0
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
LGA1700
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 8.4% of processors.
Chipset
Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680
This processor supports Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% 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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 76.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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 3.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 79.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,475
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,475 in PassMark, which is lower than 75.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
2.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2.5 MB which is smaller than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
L1 cache
160 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 160 KB which is smaller than that of 82.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
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
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel UHD Graphics 710
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 710
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 710 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 53.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85.4% of processors and equal to 5.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
46 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 46 W which is higher than that of 58.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
46 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 46 W which is higher than that of 58.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
46 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 46 W which is lower than that of 72.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
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 G6900 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 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
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Celeron G6900 is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 9% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,673 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,673 vs 1,535
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 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
  • 63.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 28.1% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (46 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    46 W vs 64 W
  • 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
  • 61% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,475 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,475 vs 11,469
  • 46.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,804 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,804 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 22.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 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 74% of models

    5.2

    Mark 6.7 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 8 video reviews, each 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.
    5.2 vs 6.7
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 22.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 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 74% of models

    5.2

    Mark 6.7 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 8 video reviews, each 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.
    5.2 vs 6.7
  • 27.8% lower sentiment score
    5.2 vs 7.2
  • 3.6% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron G6900 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.03 vs 7.3).
    7.03 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 61% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,475 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,475 vs 11,469
  • 46.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,804 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,804 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (160 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    160 KB vs 384 KB
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 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

7.0
Digital David
≈ estimated
17/12/2022
Hands-on review · Cinebench, Geekbench and PCIe 4.0 tests
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 is fine for a home server or light use at this price, not for heavy editing or fast gaming.
7.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
15/09/2022
Hands-on review · budget gaming benchmarks with RX 6500 XT
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 works as a budget gaming option for a narrow range of games like Doom, but 1% lows and loading let it down.
3.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
15/02/2022
Hands-on review · gaming and productivity benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 is too slow for modern games and not worth buying; cheap Core i3 models are far better.
5.0
Blitsgaming
≈ estimated
12/02/2022
Hands-on review · gaming, benchmarks and motherboard tests
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 is fine for browsing and office work, but too slow for games, so skip it if gaming matters.
3.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
05/02/2022
Hands-on review · gaming and productivity benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 is too weak for gaming and not worth buying; better budget CPUs cost only a little more.
5.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
13/01/2022
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and basic-use verdict
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 is fine for basic use and simple PCs, but poor for gaming; a four-core chip is the better choice.
8.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
14/10/2022
Short test · Half-Life 2 on integrated graphics
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 plays Half-Life 2 smoothly on integrated graphics, a surprisingly strong result for a budget chip.
Shop video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

4.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
16/02/2022
Gaming benchmark · Two-core CPU
Verdict
Intel Celeron G6900 is a two-core chip for light work and older, lightly threaded games, but it stutters badly in most modern titles.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron G6900

  • Extremely affordable ultra-budget price point, typically retailing between $42 and $70
  • Strong single-core performance for its class, matching some older high-end CPUs in basic tasks
  • Excellent for very basic needs like web browsing, document editing, and video streaming
  • Highly power-efficient for light use, with low idle power consumption and low operating temperatures
  • Useful as a low-cost 'tester' CPU for troubleshooting LGA1700 motherboards or performing BIOS updates
  • Integrated UHD 710 graphics provide decent performance for simple multitasking and HTPC usage
  • Supports modern standards like PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 memory

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron G6900

  • Lacks Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost, limited to only 2 physical cores and 2 threads
  • Unsuitable for modern gaming; users report frequent stuttering, low 1% FPS, and crashes in AAA titles
  • Struggles significantly with multitasking or background processes, which can cause UI sluggishness
  • Poor value compared to slightly more expensive options like the Core i3-10100F, which offers much better performance for a small price increase
  • Inadequate for production workloads like video editing, rendering, or heavy spreadsheet use
  • Lacks energy-efficient 'Gracemont' E-cores found in higher-tier Alder Lake processors
  • High total platform cost due to the requirement for newer LGA1700 motherboards which may be expensive relative to the CPU's price

Verdict

The Intel Celeron G6900 is an entry-level desktop processor from the 12th Gen Alder Lake series, featuring 2 Performance-cores and 2 threads with a 3.4 GHz base frequency and no turbo boost. Built on a 10nm process for the LGA 1700 socket, it includes 4MB of L3 Smart Cache, 2.5MB of L2 cache, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 710, while supporting both DDR4-3200 and DDR5-4800 memory up to 128GB. Main pros include its highly affordable price point, a low 46W TDP for energy-efficient basic builds, and surprisingly strong single-threaded performance that rivals much older high-end CPUs for simple office tasks. However, its significant cons include the lack of hyper-threading and a low core count, which lead to severe stuttering or total failure in modern AAA games and poor performance in multi-threaded productivity workloads.

Compare Intel Celeron G6900 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 G6900 and other processors

No results found