Celeron J3355 vs Phenom X4 9650

VS

Aggregate performance score

Phenom X4 9650
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.09
+45.3%
Celeron J3355
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.75

Phenom X4 9650 outperforms Celeron J3355 by a considerable 45% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24162663
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.06
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.097.09
Architecture codenameAgena (2007−2008)Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
Release dateMarch 2008 (16 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speedno data2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz2.5 GHz
Multiplierno data20
L1 cache128 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache512 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm14 nm
Die size285 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors450 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM2+FCBGA1296
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics 500
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data6
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno data+

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.

Phenom X4 9650 1.09
+45.3%
Celeron J3355 0.75

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.

Phenom X4 9650 1733
+44.8%
Celeron J3355 1197

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.

Phenom X4 9650 238
Celeron J3355 273
+14.7%

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.

Phenom X4 9650 758
+64.8%
Celeron J3355 460

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.09 0.75
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 10 Watt

Phenom X4 9650 has a 45.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron J3355, on the other hand, has a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 850% lower power consumption.

The Phenom X4 9650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3355 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J3355, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Phenom X4 9650
Phenom X4 9650
Intel Celeron J3355
Celeron J3355

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 226 votes

Rate Phenom X4 9650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 58 votes

Rate Celeron J3355 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom X4 9650 or Celeron J3355, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.