Celeron G1610 vs Phenom II X4 N930

Celeron G1610 vs Phenom II X4 N930 Performance Spectrum

Celeron G1610

2 / 2

1,550

0.0%

1,558

+0.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron G1610 vs Phenom II X4 N930 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron G1610 vs Phenom II X4 N930: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron G1610

2012

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Phenom II X4 N930 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,550 vs 1,558).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Phenom II X4 N930 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2650% higher power demand at 55W vs 2W.

Phenom II X4 N930

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 2W instead of 55W, a 53W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1610 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1610 better than Phenom II X4 N930?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron G1610 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Phenom II X4 N930 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Phenom II X4 N930 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron G1610 is the better buy right now. Celeron G1610 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Phenom II X4 N930 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.5% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (36.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron G1610 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G1610 vs Phenom II X4 N930 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron G1610

The Celeron G1610 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,550 points. Launch price was $388.

Phenom II X4 N930

The Phenom II X4 N930 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Champlain (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,558 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G1610 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Phenom II X4 N930 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Phenom II X4 N930 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron G1610 versus 2 GHz on the Phenom II X4 N930 — a 26.1% clock advantage for the Celeron G1610. The Celeron G1610 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Phenom II X4 N930 uses Champlain (2010−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1610 scores 1,550 against the Phenom II X4 N930's 1,558 — a 0.5% lead for the Phenom II X4 N930.

Feature	Celeron G1610	Phenom II X4 N930
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+30%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	2 MB+700%
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Champlain (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,550	1,558
Geekbench 6 Single	456	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	778	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1610 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X4 N930 uses S1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1610	Phenom II X4 N930
Socket	LGA1155	S1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G1610) / not specified (Phenom II X4 N930). The Celeron G1610 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Phenom II X4 N930 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1610 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1610 rivals Pentium G2020.