Athlon II P320 vs Phenom X4 9650
Primary details
Comparing Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon II P320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2383 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Athlon II |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | Champlain (2010−2011) |
| Release date | March 2008 (16 years ago) | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon II P320 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 3200 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 285 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon II P320 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM2+ | S1g4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon II P320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | SSE-3, SSE4A, 3DNow!, MMX, DEP, SVM |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon II P320 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
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
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 25 Watt |
Phenom X4 9650 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Athlon II P320, on the other hand, has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 280% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon II P320. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Phenom X4 9650 is a desktop processor while Athlon II P320 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon II P320, 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.
