Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G1610 outperforms the more expensive Phenom X4 9650 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G1610 is 1712 days newer than the more expensive 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 1% better in Control than Phenom X4 9650 - 199 vs 198 FPS
- Up to 7% cheaper than Phenom X4 9650 - $37.0 vs $39.99
- Up to 5% better value when playing Control than Phenom X4 9650 - $0.19 vs $0.2 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD Phenom X4 9650 - 55 vs 95 Watts
Control
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
FPS
198
99.49748743718592%
Value, $/FPS
$0.2/FPS
95%
Price, $
$39.99
92%
Buy for $39.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1567 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
199
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.19/FPS
100%
Price, $
$37
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1570 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
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 |