Athlon II X4 645
Celeron G3920
Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron G3920 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron G3920 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron G3920: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Athlon II X4 645
2010Why buy it
- ✅+44.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron G3920.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (399 vs 699).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.8 vs 59.0 PassMark/$ ($126 MSRP vs $40 MSRP).
- ❌86.3% higher power demand at 95W vs 51W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3920 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Celeron G3920
2015Why buy it
- ✅+75.2% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
- ✅Costs $86 less on MSRP ($40 MSRP vs $126 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 212.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 59.0 vs 18.8 PassMark/$ ($40 MSRP vs $126 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 51W instead of 95W, a 44W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 510, while Athlon II X4 645 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (948 vs 1,374).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X4 645.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron G3920 better than Athlon II X4 645?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron G3920 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Athlon II X4 645
The Athlon II X4 645 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Propus (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,375 points. Launch price was $80.
Celeron G3920
The Celeron G3920 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 51 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 2,358 points. Launch price was $52.
Processing Power
The Athlon II X4 645 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron G3920 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Athlon II X4 645 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X4 645 versus 2.9 GHz on the Celeron G3920 — a 6.7% clock advantage for the Athlon II X4 645 (base: 3.1 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Athlon II X4 645 uses the Propus (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron G3920 uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 645 scores 2,375 against the Celeron G3920's 2,358 — a 0.7% lead for the Athlon II X4 645. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 399 vs 699, a 54.6% lead for the Celeron G3920 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,374 vs 948 (36.7% advantage for the Athlon II X4 645). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X4 645 vs 4 MB (total) on the Celeron G3920.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Celeron G3920 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4+100% | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3.1 GHz+7% | 2.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.1 GHz+7% | 2.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 4 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core)+100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 14 nm-69% |
| Architecture | Propus (2009−2011) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| PassMark | 2,375 | 2,358 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 1,374 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 399 | 699+75% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 1,374+45% | 948 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X4 645 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G3920 uses LGA1151 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Athlon II X4 645 versus DDR4-2133 on the Celeron G3920 — the Celeron G3920 supports 60% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G3920 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD 700 Series,AMD 800 Series,AMD 900 Series (Athlon II X4 645) and H110,B150,H170,Z170 (Celeron G3920).
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Celeron G3920 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | LGA1151 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | DDR4-2133+60% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 64 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: Yes (Athlon II X4 645) vs VT-x (Celeron G3920). The Celeron G3920 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 510), while the Athlon II X4 645 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II X4 645 targets Desktop, Celeron G3920 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3920 rivals Pentium G4400.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Celeron G3920 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics 510 |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | Yes | VT-x |
| Target Use | Desktop | Budget |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Athlon II X4 645 was priced at $126, while the Celeron G3920 came in at $40. On launch pricing ($126 vs $40), Celeron G3920 was $86 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X4 645 delivers 18.8 pts/$ vs 59.0 pts/$ for the Celeron G3920 — making the Celeron G3920 the 103.1% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Celeron G3920 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $126 | $40-68% |
| Performance per Dollar | 18.8 | 59.0+214% |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2015 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon II X4 645 and Celeron G3920
