Buy on Amazon
€154.17
In Stock
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G3900 outperforms the more expensive Phenom X4 9550 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G3900 is 2714 days newer than the more expensive Phenom X4 9550.
Advantages of AMD Phenom X4 9550
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Performs up to 0% better in Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order than Phenom X4 9550 - 211 vs 210 FPS
- Up to 79% cheaper than Phenom X4 9550 - $29.18 vs $138.89
- Up to 79% better value when playing Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order than Phenom X4 9550 - $0.15 vs $0.73 per FPS
- Consumes up to 46% less energy than AMD Phenom X4 9550 - 51 vs 95 Watts
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Phenom X4 9550
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
FPS
210
99.52606635071089%
Value, €/FPS
€0.73/FPS
20.54794520547945%
Price, €
€154.17
21%
AMD Phenom X4 9550 2.2GHz 4x512KB Socket AM2+ Quad-Core CPU - CPU ONLY
Buy for €154.17 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2662 minutes ago
Celeron G3900
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
211
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.15/FPS
100%
Price, €
€32.39
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Intel Celeron G3900 2.8GHz Dual-Core Processor SR2HV LGA 1151 (CM8066201928610)
Buy for €32.39 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2667 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Phenom X4 9550
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
Celeron G3900
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Phenom X4 9550
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
Single-Core
234
40.27538726333907%
Multi-Core
712
71.7741935483871%
AMD Phenom X4 9550 | vs | Intel Celeron G3900 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 27th, 2008 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| Phenom X4 | Collection | Celeron |
| Agena | Codename | Skylake |
| AMD Socket AM2+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
| 2.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 95 W | TDP | 51 W |
| 65 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 11.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 510 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.