Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Athlon II X4 651
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 9 7950X3D outperforms Athlon II X4 651 by a whopping 1646% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1789 | 67 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 55.34 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 9 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 14 November 2011 (12 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 1024 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 71+71+122 mm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 89 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 47 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 13140 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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 | FM1 | AM5 (LGA 1718) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512F, FMA3, SHA, XFR2, Precision Boost 2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-5200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 24 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.32 | 40.51 |
| Recency | 14 November 2011 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 120 Watt |
Athlon II X4 651 has 20% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 9 7950X3D, on the other hand, has a 1646.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 9 7950X3D is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 651 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 651 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D, 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.
