Key Differences
In short — Celeron G1610 outperforms the cheaper Phenom II X4 925 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Phenom II X4 925 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Celeron G1610 is 1302 days newer than the cheaper Phenom II X4 925.
Advantages of AMD Phenom II X4 925
- Up to 65% cheaper than Celeron G1610 - €25.22 vs €72.66
- Up to 64% better value when playing Far Cry 6 than Celeron G1610 - €0.29 vs €0.81 per FPS
- 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 Far Cry 6 than Phenom II X4 925 - 90 vs 87 FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD Phenom II X4 925 - 55 vs 95 Watts
Far Cry 6
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
FPS
87
96.66666666666667%
Value, €/FPS
€0.29/FPS
100%
Price, €
€25.22
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €25.22 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 139 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
90
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.81/FPS
35.80246913580246%
Price, €
€72.66
34%
FPS Winner
Buy for €72.66 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 139 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Phenom II X4 925 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
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 | 2.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 55 W |
45 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
14.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |