Phenom II X4 925 vs Ryzen 7 8700G
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 8700G outperforms Phenom II X4 925 by a whopping 1302% 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 | 364 | 2416 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 48.73 | 0.15 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 11.71 | 0.57 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Phoenix (2023−2024) | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) | 11 May 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | $160 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 7 8700G has 32387% better value for money than Phenom II X4 925.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 8700G and Phenom II X4 925 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 178 mm2 | 258 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 25,000 million | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 8700G and Phenom II X4 925 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 | AM5 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Phenom II X4 925. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, NX-Bit, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2, XDNA2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Phenom II X4 925 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Phenom II X4 925. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon 780M | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Phenom II X4 925.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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.
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 | 17.95 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 8 January 2024 | 11 May 2009 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Ryzen 7 8700G has a 1302.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 1025% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 8700G is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Phenom II X4 925 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
