Celeron G1620T vs Celeron N4020

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.

Celeron G1620T vs Celeron N4020 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.

Celeron G1620T vs Celeron N4020: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron G1620T

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Celeron N4020 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,532 vs 1,535).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Celeron N4020 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌775% higher power demand at 35W vs 4W.

Celeron N4020

2019

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 4W instead of 35W, a 31W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1620T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4020 better than Celeron G1620T?

Yes. Celeron N4020 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron N4020 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.4% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N4020 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron N4020 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N4020 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron G1620T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (36.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron N4020 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2013), 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron G1620T vs Celeron N4020 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron G1620T

The Celeron G1620T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,532 points. Launch price was $42.

Celeron N4020

The Celeron N4020 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,535 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron G1620T and Celeron N4020 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G1620T versus 2.8 GHz on the Celeron N4020 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Celeron N4020 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The Celeron G1620T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N4020 uses Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1620T scores 1,532 against the Celeron N4020's 1,535 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron N4020. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620T vs 4 MB on the Celeron N4020.

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Celeron N4020
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.8 GHz+17%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+118%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	4 MB+100%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	4 MB+1500%
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Gemini Lake Refresh (2019)
PassMark	1,532	1,535
Geekbench 6 Single	374	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	701	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1620T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N4020 uses FCBGA1090 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Celeron N4020
Socket	LGA1155	FCBGA1090
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G1620T) / not specified (Celeron N4020). The Celeron G1620T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Celeron N4020 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620T rivals Pentium G2020T.