Ryzen Threadripper 2920X vs Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Athlon 64 X2 4400+ by a whopping 3702% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2981 | 424 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.58 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 0.61 | 8.40 |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2007) | ZEN+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | no data | 3 October 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 256K | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 220 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 233 million | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 939 | SP3r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 93.867 GB/s |
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.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.42 | 15.97 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 12 |
| Threads | 2 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 180 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ has 176.9% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, on the other hand, has a 3702.4% higher aggregate performance score, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, 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.
