Phenom X4 9500 vs Celeron G1620
Phenom X4 9500
Celeron G1620
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 X4 9500 is positioned at rank 1061 and the Celeron G1620 is on rank 590, so the Celeron G1620 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Phenom X4 9500
Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1620
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Phenom X4 9500 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($30) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Agena (2007−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Phenom X4 9500 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+31%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($30) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) |
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 X4 9500 and Celeron G1620
Phenom X4 9500
The Phenom X4 9500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Agena (2007−2008) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,564 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron G1620
The Celeron G1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 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: 1,586 points. Launch price was $208.
Processing Power
The Phenom X4 9500 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron G1620 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Phenom X4 9500 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Phenom X4 9500 versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron G1620 — a 20.4% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620. The Phenom X4 9500 uses the Agena (2007−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron G1620 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Phenom X4 9500 scores 1,564 against the Celeron G1620's 1,586 — a 1.4% lead for the Celeron G1620. Both processors carry 2 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | Phenom X4 9500 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4+100% | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.2 GHz | 2.7 GHz+23% |
| Base Clock | — | 2.7 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core)+100% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 65 nm | 22 nm-66% |
| Architecture | Agena (2007−2008) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,564 | 1,586+1% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 441 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 760 |
Memory & Platform
The Phenom X4 9500 uses the AM2+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G1620 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Phenom X4 9500 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2+ | LGA1155 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Phenom X4 9500) / VT-x, EPT (Celeron G1620). The Celeron G1620 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)), while the Phenom X4 9500 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620 rivals Pentium G2030.
| Feature | Phenom X4 9500 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, EPT |
| Target Use | — | Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Phenom X4 9500 launched at $247 MSRP, while the Celeron G1620 debuted at $52. At current prices ($30 vs $40), the Phenom X4 9500 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Phenom X4 9500 delivers 52.1 pts/$ vs 39.6 pts/$ for the Celeron G1620 — making the Phenom X4 9500 the 27.2% better value option.
| Feature | Phenom X4 9500 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $247 | $52-79% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-25% | $40 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.1+32% | 39.6 |
| Release Date | 2007 | 2012 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Phenom X4 9500 and Celeron G1620
