Celeron G1620T vs Phenom II X4 P960

Celeron G1620T vs Phenom II X4 P960 Performance Spectrum

Celeron G1620T

2 / 2

1,532

0.0%

1,542

+0.7%

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 X4 P960 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 X4 P960: 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

✅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 P960 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Phenom II X4 P960 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,532 vs 1,542).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Phenom II X4 P960 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1650% higher power demand at 35W vs 2W.

Phenom II X4 P960

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 35W, a 33W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1620T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Phenom II X4 P960 better than Celeron G1620T?

Yes. Phenom II X4 P960 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Phenom II X4 P960 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Phenom II X4 P960 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Phenom II X4 P960 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Phenom II X4 P960 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron G1620T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (36.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

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 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G1620T vs Phenom II X4 P960 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 X4 P960

The Phenom II X4 P960 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: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g4. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,542 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G1620T packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Phenom II X4 P960 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Phenom II X4 P960 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G1620T versus 1.8 GHz on the Phenom II X4 P960 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620T. The Celeron G1620T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Phenom II X4 P960 uses Champlain (2010−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1620T scores 1,532 against the Phenom II X4 P960's 1,542 — a 0.7% lead for the Phenom II X4 P960.

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Phenom II X4 P960
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+33%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 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	1,532	1,542
Geekbench 6 Single	374	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	701	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1620T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X4 P960 uses S1g4 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Phenom II X4 P960
Socket	LGA1155	S1g4
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 X4 P960). The Celeron G1620T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Phenom II X4 P960 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620T rivals Pentium G2020T.