Celeron G1630 vs Phenom X4 9650
Aggregate performance score
Phenom X4 9650 outperforms Celeron G1630 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2402 | 2408 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 1.85 |
| Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | March 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 285 mm2 | 94 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM2+ | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| 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
Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 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 Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 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 Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.09 | 1.08 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 55 Watt |
Phenom X4 9650 has a 0.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron G1630, on the other hand, has a 195.5% more advanced lithography process, and 72.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
