Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U vs Phenom II X4 B95
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U outperforms Phenom II X4 B95 by a whopping 175% 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 | 2356 | 1564 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.60 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 0.61 | 10.71 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Raven Ridge (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 1 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 8 January 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 B95 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 4950 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 B95 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 B95 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 B95 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 B95 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 B95 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
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.
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.
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 | 1.38 | 3.80 |
| Recency | 1 October 2009 | 8 January 2019 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U has a 175.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 100% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Phenom II X4 B95 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X4 B95 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
