Phenom X4 9350e vs Celeron G1620T

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G1620T
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.98
Phenom X4 9350e
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.02
+4.1%

Phenom X4 9350e outperforms Celeron G1620T by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24832455
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.40no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency2.601.46
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Agena (2007−2008)
Release date1 September 2013 (11 years ago)July 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$42no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed2.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm65 nm
Die size94 mm2285 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data450 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCLGA1155AM2+
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key-no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processorsno data
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e.

PCIe version2.0no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron G1620T 0.98
Phenom X4 9350e 1.02
+4.1%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron G1620T 1532
Phenom X4 9350e 1590
+3.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.98 1.02
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 22 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron G1620T has a 195.5% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

Phenom X4 9350e, on the other hand, has a 4.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1620T and Phenom X4 9350e, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron G1620T
Celeron G1620T
AMD Phenom X4 9350e
Phenom X4 9350e

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 5 votes

Rate Celeron G1620T on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 6 votes

Rate Phenom X4 9350e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G1620T or Phenom X4 9350e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.