Celeron J4005 vs Phenom X4 9650
Aggregated performance score
Phenom X4 9650 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
Comparing Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2272 | 2329 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 4.72 | 0.55 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | Gemini Lake (2019) |
| Release date | March 2008 (16 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
| Current price | $23 | $355 (3.3x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Phenom X4 9650 has 758% better value for money than Celeron J4005.
Detailed Specifications
Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 112 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 285 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 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 | AM2+ | FCBGA1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 600 |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 700 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no 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 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Phenom X4 9650 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 9% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Celeron J4005 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 by 46% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Phenom X4 9650 outperforms Celeron J4005 by 30% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.11 | 1.01 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 10 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron J4005, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
