CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of G1840 vs 4020 among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

6.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron G1840 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron G1840  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron G1840

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1840

Report a correction
Much better performance per watt 2.76 pt/W vs 0.73 pt/W More than 3.8x better performance per watt
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Lower typical power consumption 43.06W vs 52.81W Around 20% lower typical power consumption
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72 °C vs 70 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Lower annual commercial energy cost 46.43 $/year vs 56.94 $/year Around 20% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 12.77 $/year vs 15.66 $/year Around 20% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD A4 4020

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 4020

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly higher clock speed 3.2 GHz vs 2.8 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Much more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron G1840 vs A4 4020

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Celeron G1840
8.62 mPixels/s
A4 4020
2.54 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron G1840
111.31 fps
A4 4020
83.14 fps

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron G1840
0.82 fps
A4 4020
-1 fps

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

A4 4020
1,835

PassMark (Single Core)

A4 4020
1,157

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1840  vs
A4 4020 
Clock speed 2.8 GHz 3.2 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1150
FM2
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
ABM
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3L-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 12,800 MB/s

details

Celeron G1840  vs
A4 4020 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 70°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon HD 7480D
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 720 MHz

power consumption

TDP 53W 65W
Annual home energy cost 12.77 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 46.43 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 2.76 pt/W 0.73 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.06W 52.81W
Intel Celeron G1840
Report a correction
AMD A4 4020
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus