Celeron J3160 vs Phenom II X2 B57

Celeron J3160 vs Phenom II X2 B57 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J3160

4 / 4

1,250

0.0%

1,260

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

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 J3160 vs Phenom II X2 B57 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 J3160 vs Phenom II X2 B57: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 80W, a 74W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 400, while Phenom II X2 B57 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,250 vs 1,260).

Phenom II X2 B57

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌1233.3% higher power demand at 80W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Phenom II X2 B57 better than Celeron J3160?

Yes. Phenom II X2 B57 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.8% 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 X2 B57 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.1% 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 X2 B57 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Phenom II X2 B57 still makes the most sense overall. Phenom II X2 B57 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J3160 vs Phenom II X2 B57 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J3160

The Celeron J3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $107.

Phenom II X2 B57

The Phenom II X2 B57 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Callisto (2009−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,260 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J3160 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Phenom II X2 B57 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.24 GHz on the Celeron J3160 versus 3.2 GHz on the Phenom II X2 B57 — a 35.3% clock advantage for the Phenom II X2 B57 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Celeron J3160 uses the Airmont (2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Phenom II X2 B57 uses Callisto (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3160 scores 1,250 against the Phenom II X2 B57's 1,260 — a 0.8% lead for the Phenom II X2 B57. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron J3160 vs 6 MB (total) on the Phenom II X2 B57.

Feature	Celeron J3160	Phenom II X2 B57
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.24 GHz	3.2 GHz+43%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	3.2 GHz+100%
L3 Cache	0 kB	6 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Airmont (2016)	Callisto (2009−2010)
PassMark	1,250	1,260
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	650	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J3160 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X2 B57 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J3160	Phenom II X2 B57
Socket	FCBGA1170	AM3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J3160) / not specified (Phenom II X2 B57). The Celeron J3160 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 400), while the Phenom II X2 B57 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3160 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J3160 rivals Pentium J3710.