Phenom II X3 710 vs Celeron G1620

Place in the ranking	2468	2474
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	11.22
Market segment	Desktop processor	Desktop processor
Power efficiency	1.70	0.97
Architecture codename	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Heka (2009−2010)
Release date	3 December 2012 (11 years ago)	9 February 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$208	$85

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Phenom II X3 710 has 37300% better value for money than Celeron G1620.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores	2 (Dual-core)	3 (Tri-Core)
Threads	2	3
Base clock speed	2.7 GHz	2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed	2.7 GHz	2.6 GHz
Bus rate	5 GT/s	no data
L1 cache	64 KB (per core)	128 KB (per core)
L2 cache	256 KB (per core)	512 KB (per core)
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography	22 nm	45 nm
Die size	94 mm²	258 mm²
Maximum case temperature (TCase)	65 °C	no data
Number of transistors	no data	758 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration	1	1
Socket	FCLGA1155	AM3
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions	Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2	no data
AVX	+	-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)	+	no data
My WiFi	-	no data
Turbo Boost Technology	-	no data
Hyper-Threading Technology	-	no data
Idle States	+	no data
Thermal Monitoring	+	-

Security technologies

Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	-	no data
EDB	+	no data
Secure Key	-	no data
Anti-Theft	-	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710 are enumerated here.

AMD-V	-	+
VT-d	-	no data
VT-x	+	no data
EPT	+	no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum memory size	32 GB	no data
Max memory channels	2	no data
Maximum memory bandwidth	21 GB/s	no data
ECC memory support	+	-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card	Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors	On certain motherboards (Chipset feature)
Graphics max frequency	1.05 GHz	no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported

no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710.

PCIe version

2.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron G1620 0.99
+1%

Phenom II X3 710 0.98

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron G1620 1560
+0.6%

Phenom II X3 710 1551

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron G1620 415
+25.4%

Phenom II X3 710 331

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron G1620 725

Phenom II X3 710 832
+14.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.99	0.98
Recency	3 December 2012	9 February 2009
Physical cores	2	3
Threads	2	3
Chip lithography	22 nm	45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	95 Watt

Celeron G1620 has a 1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 72.7% lower power consumption.

Phenom II X3 710, on the other hand, has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710.

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1620 and Phenom II X3 710, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.