Xeon Platinum 8160 vs Phenom II X4 920
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Platinum 8160 outperforms Phenom II X4 920 by a whopping 1224% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2474 | 439 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.49 | 0.89 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon Platinum |
| Power efficiency | 0.42 | 4.66 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Skylake (server) (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 25 April 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $90 | $4,702 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Phenom II X4 920 has 404% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8160.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 24 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 33 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160 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 | 8 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 150 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 768 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 128.001 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 48 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.25 | 16.55 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 25 April 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 24 |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 150 Watt |
Phenom II X4 920 has 20% lower power consumption.
Xeon Platinum 8160, on the other hand, has a 1224% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Intel Xeon Platinum 8160 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Phenom II X4 920 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X4 920 is a desktop processor while Xeon Platinum 8160 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
