Celeron G1620T vs Phenom II X3 705e

Celeron G1620T vs Phenom II X3 705e Performance Spectrum

Celeron G1620T

2 / 2

1,532

+0.9%

1,519

0.0%

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 G1620T vs Phenom II X3 705e 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 G1620T vs Phenom II X3 705e: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G1620T

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Phenom II X3 705e needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 6 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Phenom II X3 705e mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Phenom II X3 705e

2009

Why buy it

✅+200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,519 vs 1,532).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1620T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1620T better than Phenom II X3 705e?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Phenom II X3 705e is ahead with a 0.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620T pulls ahead with 0.9% better PassMark. Phenom II X3 705e also has the bigger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620T is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G1620T is the better buy right now. Celeron G1620T comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.9% better PassMark. The compromise is that Phenom II X3 705e is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (36.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 G1620T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 3/3. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron G1620T vs Phenom II X3 705e Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G1620T

The Celeron G1620T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,532 points. Launch price was $42.

Phenom II X3 705e

The Phenom II X3 705e is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 June 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Heka (2009−2010) architecture. It features 3 cores and 3 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,519 points. Launch price was $152.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G1620T packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Phenom II X3 705e offers 3 cores / 3 threads — the Phenom II X3 705e has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G1620T versus 2.5 GHz on the Phenom II X3 705e — a 4.1% clock advantage for the Phenom II X3 705e (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Celeron G1620T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Phenom II X3 705e uses Heka (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1620T scores 1,532 against the Phenom II X3 705e's 1,519 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron G1620T. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620T vs 6 MB (total) on the Phenom II X3 705e.

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Phenom II X3 705e
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	3 / 3+50%
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.5 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.5 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	6 MB (total)+200%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Heka (2009−2010)
PassMark	1,532	1,519
Geekbench 6 Single	374	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	701	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1620T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X3 705e uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Phenom II X3 705e
Socket	LGA1155	AM3
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 G1620T) / not specified (Phenom II X3 705e). The Celeron G1620T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Phenom II X3 705e requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620T rivals Pentium G2020T.