Phenom II X4 810 vs Celeron G3900E
Phenom II X4 810
Celeron G3900E
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Phenom II X4 810 is positioned at rank 312 and the Celeron G3900E is on rank 816, so the Phenom II X4 810 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Phenom II X4 810
Performance Per Dollar Celeron G3900E
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Phenom II X4 810 | Celeron G3900E |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($175) | ✅ More affordable ($35) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Deneb (2009−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Skylake (2015−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Phenom II X4 810 | Celeron G3900E |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+400%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($175) | ✅ More affordable ($35) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Phenom II X4 810 and Celeron G3900E
Phenom II X4 810
The Phenom II X4 810 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 9 February 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Deneb (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 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: 2,036 points. Launch price was $116.
Celeron G3900E
The Celeron G3900E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 2,034 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
The Phenom II X4 810 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron G3900E offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Phenom II X4 810 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Phenom II X4 810 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G3900E — a 8% clock advantage for the Phenom II X4 810. The Phenom II X4 810 uses the Deneb (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron G3900E uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Phenom II X4 810 scores 2,036 against the Celeron G3900E's 2,034 — a 0.1% lead for the Phenom II X4 810. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Phenom II X4 810 vs 2 MB on the Celeron G3900E.
| Feature | Phenom II X4 810 | Celeron G3900E |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4+100% | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz+8% | 2.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 4 MB (total)+100% | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core) | 512 kB |
| Process | 45 nm | 14 nm-69% |
| Architecture | Deneb (2009−2011) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| PassMark | 2,036 | 2,034 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 699 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 948 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Phenom II X4 810) / VT-x (Celeron G3900E). The Celeron G3900E includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 510), while the Phenom II X4 810 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900E targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900E rivals Pentium G4400.
| Feature | Phenom II X4 810 | Celeron G3900E |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics 510 |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Phenom II X4 810 launched at $175 MSRP, while the Celeron G3900E debuted at $107.
| Feature | Phenom II X4 810 | Celeron G3900E |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $175 | $107-39% |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $35 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2016 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Phenom II X4 810 and Celeron G3900E
