EPYC 72F3 vs Phenom X4 9500
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 72F3 outperforms Phenom X4 9500 by a whopping 1634% 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 | 2768 | 510 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.02 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.01 | 9.21 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | November 2007 (18 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,468 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Phenom X4 9500 and EPYC 72F3 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 285 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9500 and EPYC 72F3 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 |
| Socket | AM2+ | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom X4 9500 and EPYC 72F3. 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 X4 9500 and EPYC 72F3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom X4 9500 and EPYC 72F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom X4 9500 and EPYC 72F3.
| PCIe version | no data | 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 | 0.89 | 15.43 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 180 Watt |
Phenom X4 9500 has 89.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 72F3, on the other hand, has a 1633.7% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 72F3 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Phenom X4 9500 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom X4 9500 is a desktop processor while EPYC 72F3 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.
