Key Differences
In short — Celeron G1610 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G1610 is 1712 days newer than Phenom X4 9650.
Advantages of AMD Phenom X4 9650
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Performs up to 3% better in Remnant II than Phenom X4 9650 - 78 vs 76 FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD Phenom X4 9650 - 55 vs 95 Watts
Remnant II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Phenom X4 9650
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Phenom X4 9650 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 27th, 2008 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| Phenom X4 | Collection | Celeron |
| Agena | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| AMD Socket AM2+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
| 2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 95 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 65 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 11.5x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
| No | Overclockable | No |
