Key Differences
In short — Celeron G1620 outperforms Phenom II X4 925 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G1620 is 1302 days newer than Phenom II X4 925.
Advantages of AMD Phenom II X4 925
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Performs up to 1% better in Lost Ark than Phenom II X4 925 - 221 vs 218 FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD Phenom II X4 925 - 55 vs 95 Watts
Lost Ark
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Phenom II X4 925
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Phenom II X4 925 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| May 11th, 2009 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| Phenom II X4 | Collection | Celeron |
| Deneb | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| AMD Socket AM3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 95 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 45 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 14.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
| No | Overclockable | No |
