Xeon Platinum 8160 vs Phenom II X4 920

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X4 920
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 125 Watt
1.25
Xeon Platinum 8160
2017
24 cores / 48 threads, 150 Watt
16.55
+1224%

Xeon Platinum 8160 outperforms Phenom II X4 920 by a whopping 1224% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2462431
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.490.89
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon Platinum
Power efficiency0.424.66
DesignerAMDIntel
Architecture codenameDeneb (2009−2011)Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
Release date8 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads448
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.7 GHz
Multiplierno data21
L1 cache128 KB (per core)1.5 MB
L2 cache512 KB (per core)24 MB
L3 cache6 MB (shared)33 MB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size258 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data85 °C
Number of transistors758 millionno 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 configuration18 (Multiprocessor)
SocketAM3FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt150 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 extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-

Security technologies

Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno 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 typesDDR3DDR4-2666
Maximum memory sizeno data768 GB
Max memory channelsno data6
Maximum memory bandwidthno data128.001 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data48

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.

Phenom II X4 920 1.25
Xeon Platinum 8160 16.55
+1224%

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.

Phenom II X4 920 2202
Samples: 198
Xeon Platinum 8160 29091
+1221%
Samples: 10

Gaming 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.

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 920
Phenom II X4 920
Intel Xeon Platinum 8160
Xeon Platinum 8160

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 45 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 48 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8160 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Phenom II X4 920 and Xeon Platinum 8160, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.