EPYC 7282 vs Phenom X4 9550
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7282 outperforms Phenom X4 9550 by a whopping 1712% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom X4 9550 and EPYC 7282 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2325 | 274 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.03 | 64.12 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | March 2008 (16 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $650 |
| Current price | $76 | $188 (0.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7282 has 6125% better value for money than Phenom X4 9550.
Detailed specifications
Phenom X4 9550 and EPYC 7282 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 285 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9550 and EPYC 7282 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 | AM2+ | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom X4 9550 and EPYC 7282. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9550 and EPYC 7282 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom X4 9550 and EPYC 7282. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | 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 | no data | + |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
EPYC 7282 outperforms Phenom X4 9550 by 1712% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 7282 outperforms Phenom X4 9550 by 1711% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
EPYC 7282 outperforms Phenom X4 9550 by 388% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
EPYC 7282 outperforms Phenom X4 9550 by 1064% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.07 | 19.39 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
The EPYC 7282 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom X4 9550 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom X4 9550 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7282 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9550 and EPYC 7282, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
