Celeron G1630 vs Phenom X4 9650

VS

Aggregate performance score

Phenom X4 9650
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.09
+1.9%
Celeron G1630
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 55 Watt
1.07

Phenom X4 9650 outperforms Celeron G1630 by a minimal 2% 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 ranking24162424
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.08
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.091.84
Architecture codenameAgena (2007−2008)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release dateMarch 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.

no data

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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speedno data2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz2.8 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm22 nm
Die size285 mm294 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data65 °C
Number of transistors450 millionno 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 configuration11
SocketAM2+FCLGA1155
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt55 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 extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno 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 typesno dataDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1.05 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron G1630.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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.

Phenom X4 9650 1.09
+1.9%
Celeron G1630 1.07

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.

Phenom X4 9650 1733
+1.5%
Celeron G1630 1707

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.

Phenom X4 9650 238
Celeron G1630 504
+112%

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.

Phenom X4 9650 758
Celeron G1630 937
+23.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.09 1.07
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 1.9% 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.

Vote for your favorite

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


AMD Phenom X4 9650
Phenom X4 9650
Intel Celeron G1630
Celeron G1630

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.


3.8 226 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 27 votes

Rate Celeron G1630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom X4 9650 or Celeron G1630, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.