Celeron G3930 vs Phenom II X4 925

Celeron G3930 vs Phenom II X4 925 Performance Spectrum

Celeron G3930

2 / 2

2,259

0.0%

2,261

+0.1%

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 G3930 vs Phenom II X4 925 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 G3930 vs Phenom II X4 925: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G3930

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 51W instead of 95W, a 44W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 610, while Phenom II X4 925 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,259 vs 2,261).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 6 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Phenom II X4 925 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Phenom II X4 925

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌86.3% higher power demand at 95W vs 51W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3930 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G3930 better than Phenom II X4 925?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron G3930 is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Phenom II X4 925 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark. Phenom II X4 925 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 925 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% 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 G3930 is the better buy right now. Celeron G3930 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Phenom II X4 925 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.1% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (53.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 G3930 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G3930 vs Phenom II X4 925 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G3930

The Celeron G3930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 51 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 2133, DDR3L 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 2,259 points. Launch price was $42.

Phenom II X4 925

The Phenom II X4 925 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 11 May 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Deneb (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,261 points. Launch price was $160.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G3930 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Phenom II X4 925 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Phenom II X4 925 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the Celeron G3930 versus 2.8 GHz on the Phenom II X4 925 — a 3.5% clock advantage for the Celeron G3930 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Celeron G3930 uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Phenom II X4 925 uses Deneb (2009−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3930 scores 2,259 against the Phenom II X4 925's 2,261 — a 0.1% lead for the Phenom II X4 925. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G3930 vs 6 MB (total) on the Phenom II X4 925.

Feature	Celeron G3930	Phenom II X4 925
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	6 MB (total)+200%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Deneb (2009−2011)
PassMark	2,259	2,261
Geekbench 6 Single	750	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,100	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G3930 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X4 925 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G3930	Phenom II X4 925
Socket	LGA1151	AM3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G3930) / not specified (Phenom II X4 925). The Celeron G3930 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 610), while the Phenom II X4 925 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3930 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3930 rivals Pentium G4560.