Ryzen 5 4600G vs Phenom II X4 820

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X4 820
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.31
Ryzen 5 4600G
2020
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
10.12
+673%

Ryzen 5 4600G outperforms Phenom II X4 820 by a whopping 673% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2259764
Place by popularitynot in top-10026
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.10no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Ryzen 5
Power efficiency1.3014.73
Architecture codenameDeneb (2009−2011)Renoir (2020−2023)
Release date1 September 2009 (15 years ago)21 July 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$90no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G 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)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads412
Base clock speed2.8 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz4.2 GHz
Multiplierno data37
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm
Die size258 mm2156 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data95 °C
Number of transistors758 million9800 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G 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
SocketAM3AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory sizeno data128 GB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data51.196 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon Vega 7

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G.

PCIe version2.03.0

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 II X4 820 1.31
Ryzen 5 4600G 10.12
+673%

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 II X4 820 2081
Ryzen 5 4600G 16071
+672%

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 II X4 820 314
Ryzen 5 4600G 1583
+404%

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 II X4 820 923
Ryzen 5 4600G 6138
+565%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.31 10.12
Recency 1 September 2009 21 July 2020
Physical cores 4 6
Threads 4 12
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

Ryzen 5 4600G has a 672.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 4600G is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X4 820 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 820 and Ryzen 5 4600G, 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 II X4 820
Phenom II X4 820
AMD Ryzen 5 4600G
Ryzen 5 4600G

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.


4.5 58 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 820 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2707 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 4600G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom II X4 820 or Ryzen 5 4600G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.