Celeron M 925 vs Phenom X4 9650
Primary details
Comparing Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron M 925 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2404 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | March 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $70 |
Detailed specifications
Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron M 925 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 285 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron M 925 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM2+ | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron M 925. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron M 925 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Phenom X4 9650 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron M 925, on the other hand, has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron M 925. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Phenom X4 9650 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 925 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9650 and Celeron M 925, 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.
