Celeron G1630 vs Phenom II X4 900e

Celeron G1630 vs Phenom II X4 900e Performance Spectrum

Celeron G1630

2 / 2

1,707

0.0%

1,727

+1.2%

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 G1630 vs Phenom II X4 900e 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 G1630 vs Phenom II X4 900e: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G1630

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W 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 X4 900e needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,707 vs 1,727).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 6 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Phenom II X4 900e mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Phenom II X4 900e

2009

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1630 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1630 better than Phenom II X4 900e?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron G1630 is ahead with a 0.9% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Phenom II X4 900e pulls ahead with 1.2% better PassMark. Phenom II X4 900e 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, Phenom II X4 900e is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Celeron G1630 is the better buy right now. Celeron G1630 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Phenom II X4 900e is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.2% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (40.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 G1630 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G1630 vs Phenom II X4 900e Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G1630

The Celeron G1630 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 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 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: 1,707 points. Launch price was $80.

Phenom II X4 900e

The Phenom II X4 900e is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Deneb (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 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: 1,727 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G1630 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Phenom II X4 900e offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Phenom II X4 900e has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron G1630 versus 2.4 GHz on the Phenom II X4 900e — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Celeron G1630 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Celeron G1630 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Phenom II X4 900e uses Deneb (2009−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1630 scores 1,707 against the Phenom II X4 900e's 1,727 — a 1.2% lead for the Phenom II X4 900e. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1630 vs 6 MB (total) on the Phenom II X4 900e.

Feature	Celeron G1630	Phenom II X4 900e
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+17%	2.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+17%	2.4 GHz
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)	Deneb (2009−2011)
PassMark	1,707	1,727+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	386	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	635	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1630 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X4 900e uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1630	Phenom II X4 900e
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 G1630) / not specified (Phenom II X4 900e). The Celeron G1630 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Phenom II X4 900e requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1630 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1630 rivals Pentium G2030.