Celeron G3900 vs FirePro A320

Celeron G3900 vs FirePro A320 Performance Spectrum

Celeron G3900

2 / 2

2,155

+0.1%

2,153

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron G3900 vs FirePro A320 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 G3900 vs FirePro A320: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G3900

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 51W instead of 100W, a 49W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 510, while FirePro A320 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Intel Stock), unlike FirePro A320.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FirePro A320 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while FirePro A320 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

FirePro A320

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,153 vs 2,155).
❌96.1% higher power demand at 100W vs 51W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3900 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron G3900.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G3900 better than FirePro A320?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, FirePro A320 is ahead with a 3.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G3900 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G3900 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G3900 is the better buy right now. Celeron G3900 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that FirePro A320 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 3.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (51.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron G3900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron G3900 vs FirePro A320 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G3900

The Celeron G3900 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 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 51 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 2,155 points. Launch price was $42.

FirePro A320

The FirePro A320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 100 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 2,153 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G3900 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the FirePro A320 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FirePro A320 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron G3900 versus 4.2 GHz on the FirePro A320 — a 40% clock advantage for the FirePro A320 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Celeron G3900 uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the FirePro A320 uses Trinity (2012−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3900 scores 2,155 against the FirePro A320's 2,153 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron G3900.

Feature	Celeron G3900	FirePro A320
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz	4.2 GHz+50%
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	3.8 GHz+36%
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	4 MB (total)+1500%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Trinity (2012−2013)
PassMark	2,155	2,153
Geekbench 6 Single	680	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G3900 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FirePro A320 uses FM2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G3900	FirePro A320
Socket	LGA1151	FM2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron G3900) / not specified (FirePro A320). The Celeron G3900 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 510), while the FirePro A320 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900 rivals Pentium G4400.