Phenom X4 9650 vs Celeron J4025

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J4025
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.93
Phenom X4 9650
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.09
+17.2%

Phenom X4 9650 outperforms Celeron J4025 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25262416
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.68no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency8.761.08
Architecture codenameGemini Lake Refresh (2019)Agena (2007−2008)
Release date4 November 2019 (5 years ago)March 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 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 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz2.3 GHz
L1 cache56 KB (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB (shared)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm65 nm
Die size93 mm2285 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data450 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 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
SocketFCBGA1090AM2+
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Smart Response-no data
GPIO+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data

Security technologies

Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 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 J4025 and Phenom X4 9650. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4no data
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel UHD Graphics 600no data
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency700 MHzno data
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
MIPI-DSI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096x2160@30Hzno data
Max resolution over eDP4096x2160@60Hzno data
Max resolution over DisplayPort4096x2160@60Hzno data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.4no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes6no data
USB revision2.0/3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports2no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN-no data
UART+no 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 J4025 0.93
Phenom X4 9650 1.09
+17.2%

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 J4025 1477
Phenom X4 9650 1733
+17.3%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron J4025 329
+38.2%
Phenom X4 9650 238

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron J4025 539
Phenom X4 9650 758
+40.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.93 1.09
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 95 Watt

Celeron J4025 has a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 850% lower power consumption.

Phenom X4 9650, on the other hand, has a 17.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Phenom X4 9650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4025 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4025 and Phenom X4 9650, 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 J4025
Celeron J4025
AMD Phenom X4 9650
Phenom X4 9650

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.


3.2 127 votes

Rate Celeron J4025 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 225 votes

Rate Phenom X4 9650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron J4025 or Phenom X4 9650, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.