Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ vs Phenom X4 9550
Aggregate performance score
Phenom X4 9550 outperforms Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ by a whopping 395% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom X4 9550 and Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2432 | 3215 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Mobile Athlon 64 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 0.32 |
| Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | Newark (2003) |
| Release date | March 2008 (16 years ago) | August 2003 (21 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Phenom X4 9550 and Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128K |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | no data |
| Die size | 285 mm2 | 193 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 106 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9550 and Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ 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 |
| Socket | AM2+ | 754 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 62 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9550 and Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom X4 9550 and Mobile Athlon 64 3200+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.04 | 0.21 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 62 Watt |
Phenom X4 9550 has a 395.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Mobile Athlon 64 3200+, on the other hand, has 53.2% lower power consumption.
The Phenom X4 9550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ in performance tests.
Note that Phenom X4 9550 is a desktop processor while Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9550 and Mobile Athlon 64 3200+, 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.
