EPYC 7252 vs Phenom II X4 925
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7252 outperforms Phenom II X4 925 by a whopping 760% 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 | 2519 | 844 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.15 | 8.12 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.57 | 3.90 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 11 May 2009 (17 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | $475 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7252 has 5313% better value for money than Phenom II X4 925.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Phenom II X4 925 and EPYC 7252: 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 32 MB (per die) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 2x 74 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 7,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 925 and EPYC 7252 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 925 and EPYC 7252. 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 Phenom II X4 925 and EPYC 7252 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 925 and EPYC 7252. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 925 and EPYC 7252.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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 | 1.29 | 11.09 |
| Recency | 11 May 2009 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
Phenom II X4 925 has 26% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7252, on the other hand, has a 760% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7252 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Phenom II X4 925 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X4 925 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7252 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.
