Intel Celeron G6900 can match i9-10900K's single-threaded performance

jsilva

Posts: 325   +2
In brief: The first benchmarks results of the newly announced Intel Celeron G6900 were spotted in the Geekbench database, and they sure seem promising. Compared to other 12th Gen Core processors, it's far from impressive, but when compared with the 10th Gen Core i9-10900K, single-threaded performance seems to be on the same level.

To put things into perspective, we should first compare the specifications of both chips. The Intel Celeron G6900 is a 2C/2T processor with a 3.4GHz base frequency, 4MB of L3 cache and 46W TDP. As for the Core i9-10900K, it's a 10C/20T CPU with a 3.7GHz base frequency, boosting up to 5.3GHz using Thermal Velocity Boost technology. In addition, the chip carries 20MB of L3 cache and has a 125W TDP.

On paper, the i9 processor seems far superior to the G6900 in all aspects, but according to the various recently found Geekbench entries, it's not that simple. Mounted on an ASRock Z690M Phantom Gaming 4 motherboard and paired with 16GB of DDR4 memory, the Alder Lake Celeron single-thread performance is on par with the 10th Gen Core processor.

The Geekbench entries show the processor running at 4.4GHz, scoring around 1400 points in the single-thread benchmark. On the multi-core test, scores vary between 2300 and 2600 points.

Comparing the G6900 scores with those on the Geekbench processor benchmark chart, the Alder Lake chip seems to perform about the same as the Intel Core i9-10900K (1393 points) in single-core scenarios. That's rather impressive, considering the former is an entry-level 12th Gen Core processor, and the i9-10900K is a two-generation-old flagship.

As expected, the multi-core performance difference between the two is considerable, but that is expected considering the massive difference in the number of cores (2 vs 10 with HyperThreading).

Also Read: Intel 12th-Gen Core Alder Lake Architectural Benchmark

Despite the surprising single-threaded performance, the G6900 won't be your go-to processor for gaming systems. Single-core performance is vital for gaming, but modern titles benefit from higher core counts, which this processor lacks. Overall, the entry-level Alder Lake CPU seems more suitable for office work and general use computers.

Permalink to story.

 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,077   +3,981
Do we know have to deal with another round of people saying "Actually you only *really* need 2 cores and 2 threads if they're this fast this is the best, new budget king!" all over again? Didn't we get enough of that with people and press preaching a 4/8 chip in 2022?
 

MaXtor

Posts: 392   +397
Do we know have to deal with another round of people saying "Actually you only *really* need 2 cores and 2 threads if they're this fast this is the best, new budget king!" all over again? Didn't we get enough of that with people and press preaching a 4/8 chip in 2022?
It depends. If you only play older games, then the dual core argument holds true. Or let's say you want to run a dedicated source server like a CSGO server: Source Dedicated Server (SRCDS) runs on a single core, so this CPU would be killer for running two max tickrate and max player count servers.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,317   +5,502
It depends. If you only play older games, then the dual core argument holds true. Or let's say you want to run a dedicated source server like a CSGO server: Source Dedicated Server (SRCDS) runs on a single core, so this CPU would be killer for running two max tickrate and max player count servers.
My father's machien run on an old G6400, runs old battlefront, baulders gate, and sins of a solar empire just fine. One like this with proper full power P cores (not the old skylake cores with butchered AVX the old pentiums had) would be awesome for such a use case.

Also useful for a home NAS or media streaming box, especially with quicksync.
Do we know have to deal with another round of people saying "Actually you only *really* need 2 cores and 2 threads if they're this fast this is the best, new budget king!" all over again? Didn't we get enough of that with people and press preaching a 4/8 chip in 2022?
Depends, if enough nerds whine about how terrible it is that there dares to be a 2 core chip in 2022 I feel like everyone is going to talk about how great the pentium is.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,584   +1,407
Do we know have to deal with another round of people saying "Actually you only *really* need 2 cores and 2 threads if they're this fast this is the best, new budget king!" all over again? Didn't we get enough of that with people and press preaching a 4/8 chip in 2022?
It’s a $55, 46w CPU. It has dozens of uses that isn’t gaming or video encoding, 3D modelling etc. In my case the only thing I do that uses more than 2 cores is play games. And for that I need 4/8 at the very most with my RX480. Sure there are some games that perform better on 6/12 CPUs but you only see that if you have an expensive graphics card.

The problem is that you are looking at core count as an important spec. AMDs 6 core 5600X just about matches an 8 core 3700X at multithreaded tests and performs a lot faster at single threaded meaning that despite having two less cores it’s better for anyone who buys it.

With gaming, your experience is much more sensitive to core speed than core count once you’ve got at least 4 cores. That’s why the leaks for the quad core i3 12100 has it delivering better frame rates in games than a 6 core 3600 that has older, slower cores.

So yes, if anyone is ignorant enough to leave a comment saying “I wouldn’t consider less than x amount of cores” etc then that person will rightfully get called out.

 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,104   +2,512
TechSpot Elite
There's something wrong with the reporting on this CPU as the G6900 is a 3.4GHz part with no option for Turbo Boost. Maybe Geekbench is too clueless to poll the processor frequency properly but there is no G6900 with a 4.4GHz processor speed.

Edit: With the i5-12400 getting about 1750 single core in GB5 at 4.4GHz, this Celeron getting 1400 single core in GB5 at 3.4 GHz seems reasonable. GB5 reporting error.
 

defaultluser

Posts: 368   +296
My father's machien run on an old G6400, runs old battlefront, baulders gate, and sins of a solar empire just fine. One like this with proper full power P cores (not the old skylake cores with butchered AVX the old pentiums had) would be awesome for such a use case.

Also useful for a home NAS or media streaming box, especially with quicksync.

Depends, if enough nerds whine about how terrible it is that there dares to be a 2 core chip in 2022 I feel like everyone is going to talk about how great the pentium is.

Except the Pentium is still doing the exact same trick that it already learned five years ago - make the Celeron 2/4, the Pentium 4/4, and the i3 can stay 4/8 (with Turboboost, so it rolls the 4/4 Pentium by 50% in multithreaded games!)

You know when Microsoft REQUIRES Quad threads to run Windows 11, it seems kinda broken that Intel's new Windows 11 preferred platform (Alder Lake) can't always make the grade!
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,584   +1,407
There's something wrong with the reporting on this CPU as the G6900 is a 3.4GHz part with no option for Turbo Boost. Maybe Geekbench is too clueless to poll the processor frequency properly but there is no G6900 with a 4.4GHz processor speed.

Edit: With the i5-12400 getting about 1750 single core in GB5 at 4.4GHz, this Celeron getting 1400 single core in GB5 at 3.4 GHz seems reasonable. GB5 reporting error.
PC Gamer explains it better than Techspot (How embarassing lol). But basically if you stick this celeron in this expensive Z690 board from Asrock you get Asrock’s “Base Frequency Boost”.

 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,104   +2,512
TechSpot Elite
PC Gamer explains it better than Techspot (How embarassing lol). But basically if you stick this celeron in this expensive Z690 board from Asrock you get Asrock’s “Base Frequency Boost”.


I think PCGamer made an assumption that's not supported by the tech behind BFB. BFB seems to give power-limited processors (65W for instance) additional power (125W for instance) to allow them run at their boost clock rates for longer or ad infinitum if cooling is good enough. Most useful for high clocked non-K SKUS like the i7-9700 I have. I do this manually and get more CPU speed than their website claims for the 9700 (4.2GHz at 110W, 4.5 at 130W).

Problem is that the G6900 doesn't have Turbo Boost, but if it's actually power-limited at 46W, BFB could help stay at 3.4GHz with more power usage. However I don't see how it could run at 4.4 GHz because it can't. Otherwise people would be buying ASRock Mobos to clock their i5-10400s to 5GHz all the time.

I wonder if the silicon is even good enough to do so if that clock limitation could be broken, as the G6900 should be made from the absolute worst silicon from the edges of the wafer.
 

Crinkles

Posts: 222   +206
Problem is that the G6900 doesn't have Turbo Boost, but if it's actually power-limited at 46W, BFB could help stay at 3.4GHz with more power usage. However I don't see how it could run at 4.4 GHz because it can't.

It can't, Intel's not going to let a Celery run that fast, for free.

Otherwise people would be buying ASRock Mobos to clock their i5-10400s to 5GHz all the time.

Exactly that.

I wonder if the silicon is even good enough to do so if that clock limitation could be broken, as the G6900 should be made from the absolute worst silicon from the edges of the wafer.

They had Celeron's that clocked to insane speeds before, they started locking those chips at the foundry. It seems more like Intel chips are very high quality and durable, not shabby leftovers.
 

Fastturtle

Posts: 58   +33
Good for a Home NAS setup with few users. Low power and decent perf for file saves/transfers and such. Even fast enough to transcode for a plex server