Phenom X4 9650 [in 3 benchmarks]
AMD
Phenom X4 9650
Buy
- Interface
- Core clock speed
- Max video memory
- Memory type
- Memory clock speed
- Maximum resolution
Summary
AMD started AMD Phenom X4 9650 sales on March 2008. This is Agena architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, and is based on 65 nm manufacturing technology, with a maximum frequency of 2300 MHz and a locked multiplier.
Compatibility-wise, this is AMD Socket AM2+ processor with a TDP of 95 Watt.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
1.68%
of a leader’s which is AMD EPYC 7h22.
Phenom X4
9650
vs
EPYC
7h22
General info
Phenom X4 9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and pricing.
Place in performance rating | 2064 | |
Value for money | 4.72 | |
Market segment | Desktop processor | |
Architecture codename | Agena (2007−2008) | |
Release date | March 2008 (14 years ago) | |
Current price | $29 | of 15411 (EPYC 7351) |
Value for money
To get the index we compare the characteristics of the processors and their cost, taking into account the cost of other processors.
- 0
- 50
- 100
Technical specs
Basic microprocessor parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters can generally indicate CPU performance, but to be more precise you have to review its test results.
Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | |
Threads | 4 | |
Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | of 5.8 (Core i9-13900K) |
L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | of 1536 (EPYC Embedded 3401) |
L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | of 12288 (Core 2 Quad Q9550) |
L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | of 32 (Ryzen Threadripper 1998) |
Chip lithography | 65 nm | of 5 (Apple M1) |
Die size | 285 mm2 | |
Number of transistors | 450 million | of 57000 (Apple M1 Max) |
64 bit support | + | |
Windows 11 compatibility | — |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom X4 9650 compatibility with other computer components and devices: 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 | of 8 (Opteron 842) |
Socket | AM2+ | |
Thermal design power (TDP) | 95 Watt | of 400 (Xeon Platinum 9282) |
Virtualization technologies
Supported virtual machine optimization technologies. Some are specific to Intel only, some to AMD.
AMD-V | + |
Benchmark performance
Single-core and multi-core benchmark results of Phenom X4 9650. Overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Overall 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.
Phenom X4 9650
1.68
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 Single-Core
- GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
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%
Phenom X4 9650
1694
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: 37%
Phenom X4 9650
268
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: 37%
Phenom X4 9650
938
Relative perfomance
Overall Phenom X4 9650 performance compared to nearest competitors among desktop CPUs.
Intel Celeron G1630
100.6
AMD PRO A6-9500
100
Intel Pentium G2100T
100
AMD Phenom X4 9650
100
AMD Athlon II X3 435
99. 4
Intel Pentium G2020
99.4
Intel Celeron J4025
99.4
Intel equivalent
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Phenom X4 9650 from Intel is Pentium G2100T, which is nearly equal in speed and lower by 1 position in our rating.
Pentium
G2100T
Compare
Here are some closest Intel rivals to Phenom X4 9650:
Intel Celeron G1630
100.6
Intel Core i3-560
100.6
Intel Pentium G2100T
100
AMD Phenom X4 9650
100
Intel Pentium G2020
99. 4
Intel Celeron J4025
99.4
Intel Celeron G1820
97.62
Similar processors
Here is our recommendation of several processors that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.
Core i3
560
Compare
Athlon II
X3 435
Compare
Athlon II
X4 600e
Compare
Athlon II
X3 440
Compare
Phenom II
X4 910
Compare
Athlon II
X3 450
Compare
Recommended graphics cards
These graphics cards are most commonly used with Phenom X4 9650 according to our statistics.
GeForce GTX
550 Ti
4.9%
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
4.2%
GeForce GT
710
3.9%
GeForce
9600 GT
3.5%
GeForce GTX
650
3.4%
GeForce GT
730
3.2%
GeForce GTS
450
3.1%
GeForce GT
630
3%
GeForce GTX
750 Ti
3%
GeForce GT
1030
2. 6%
User rating
Here is the rating given to the reviewed processor by our users. Let others know your opinion by rating it yourself.
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question about Phenom X4 9650, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
AMD Phenom X4 9650 Specs, Price, and FPS in Games
4 | 4 | 2.3 GHz |
Cores | Threads | Base Frequency |
---|
Geekbench 5 Single-Core
266
10%
Geekbench 5 Multi-Core
930
3%
Availability
AMD Phenom X4 9650 (HD9650WCJ4BGH) CPU 2.3 GHz Quad Core Socket AM2+ 9650 can Work
Buy on Amazon
$20.96
In Stock
Updated 17 minutes ago
Graphics Card
Resolution
Select game resolution
Graphics Settings
Select game graphics
Offset
. ..
Apply Offset
Value Rating
Performance Rating
Value per FPS
You will receive
… FPS
Alternatives For Phenom X4 9650
1080p, High
No alternatives — this is the best option
Specifications
General | |
---|---|
Release Date | Mar 27th, 2008 |
Segment | Desktop |
Socket | AMD Socket AM2+ |
Collection | Phenom X4 |
Codename | Agena |
Performance | |
---|---|
Cores | 4 |
Threads | 4 |
Base Frequency | 2.3 GHz |
Other | |
---|---|
Power Consumption | 95 W |
Overclockable | No |
Integrated Graphics | None |
Builds Using AMD Phenom X4 9650
1080p, High
Find out which of the 2 CPUs performs better, view a side-by-side specification comparison.
Ryzen 5 5600X
$193.75
Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 5 3600
$137.79
Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 9 5900X
$398.99
Ryzen 5 5600X
$193.75
Ryzen 9 5900X
$398.99
Core i7-8700K
Core i7-12700K
$369.99
Ryzen 5 5600X
$193.75
Ryzen 5 5600G
$149.99
Refine results to filter 1558 processors by performance, release date, price, and value. Click on a CPU to view more in-depth specifications and game FPS.
Found 1558 CPUs.
Popularity
Processor
Performance
Ryzen 9 5900X
Release Date: Nov 5th, 2020
Performance Rating
$398.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 5 5600X
Release Date: Nov 5th, 2020
Performance Rating
$193.75 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 5 5600G
Release Date: Apr 13th, 2021
Performance Rating
$149. 99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i7-12700KF
Release Date: Nov 4th, 2021
Performance Rating
$367.36 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i5-11600KF
Release Date: Mar 16th, 2021
Performance Rating
$233.98 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 7 5800X
Release Date: Nov 5th, 2020
Performance Rating
$269 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i9-12900K
Release Date: Nov 4th, 2021
Performance Rating
$499.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i9-12900KF
Release Date: Nov 4th, 2021
Performance Rating
$529.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i5-10600K
Release Date: Apr 30th, 2020
Performance Rating
$229.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i7-10700K
Release Date: Apr 30th, 2020
Performance Rating
$259.04 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i5-12600K
Release Date: Nov 4th, 2021
Performance Rating
$277. 99 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 7 5700G
Release Date: Apr 13th, 2021
Performance Rating
$225.98 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 5 3600
Release Date: Jul 7th, 2019
Performance Rating
$137.79 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i7-12700K
Release Date: Nov 4th, 2021
Performance Rating
$369.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i9-11900K
Release Date: Mar 16th, 2021
Performance Rating
$361.85 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 9 5950X
Release Date: Nov 5th, 2020
Performance Rating
$549 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i7-11700K
Release Date: Mar 16th, 2021
Performance Rating
$303.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i7-11700KF
Release Date: Mar 16th, 2021
Performance Rating
$264.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i9-10900K
Release Date: Apr 30th, 2020
Performance Rating
$345. 99 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i9-11900KF
Release Date: Mar 16th, 2021
Performance Rating
$339.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 7 3700X
Release Date: Jul 7th, 2019
Performance Rating
$255 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i5-10400F
Release Date: Apr 30th, 2020
Performance Rating
$133 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 9 3900X
Release Date: Jul 7th, 2019
Performance Rating
$345 on Amazon
In Stock
Ryzen 7 3800X
Release Date: Jul 7th, 2019
Performance Rating
$253.97 on Amazon
In Stock
Core i5-11400F
Release Date: Mar 16th, 2021
Performance Rating
$169.99 on Amazon
In Stock
- Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next
AMD Phenom X4 9650 Quad Core Super Fast Desktop PC
All component are brand new ,out of the box. System is completely assembled and tested. |
Biostar MCP6PB M2+ Motherboard
Enjoy incomparable graphics
performance with the new Biostar MCP6PB M2+ Socket AM2/AM2+
motherboard. This powerful µATX platform boasts embedded GeForce 6150
graphic engine, integrating a DirectX 9 graphics processor with up to
256MB shared memory. The MCP6PB M2+ is built for AMD Phenom (Socket
AM2+), AMD Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64X2 dual core, Athlon 64, and Sempron
processors with up to 2000MT/s HT. It supports dual-channel DDR2 memory
up to 800MHz, SATA II, RAID 0, 1, USB 2.0, PCI-E x16, Fast Ethernet
LAN, and 6-channel high-definition audio
Specifications |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Detailed Features
|
|
AMD Phenom X4 9650 Quad Core Processor HD9650WCGHBOX-OEM
Deliver more sophisticated solutions with the leading-edge technology
of AMD Phenom™ 9000 Series processor. Built from the ground up for true
quad-core performance, AMD Phenom 9000 Series processors incorporate a
unified high-speed L3 cache and high-speed DDR2 memory. Speed through
complex multitasking, critical business productivity, advanced visual
design and modeling and visually stunning digital media and
entertainment. Whether it’s a single solution or an enterprise system,
AMD Phenom processors have the power to perform.
What It Is & Why You Need It!
- What
AMD64 Technology, you can enjoy incredibly sharp audio, jaw-dropping
performance, and graphics so intense it’s hard to tell what’s real and
what’s not. - Enjoy accelerated video with extreme resolution, quality, and performance for a mobile entertainment experience.
- High definition entertainment that’s light years ahead of Dual Core.
AMD
Phenom processors include AMD Digital Media XPress™ 2.0 technology,
advanced technology that delivers sharper and more lifelike 3D
graphics. Also AMD’s advanced power management technology can help
reduce PCs’ heat output and increase power efficiency. Discover amazing
speed with True Quad-Core Performance. The AMD Phenom 9000 Series
processor is advanced technology.
Specifications |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Detailed Features
|
Centon 2048MB PC6400 DDR2 Memory |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Specifications |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comparison of AMD Athlon II X4 640 and AMD Phenom X4 9650
Comparative analysis of AMD Athlon II X4 640 and AMD Phenom X4 9650 processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
AMD Athlon II X4 640
versus
AMD Phenom X4 9650
Benefits
Reasons to choose AMD Athlon II X4 640
- Newer processor, release date difference 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
- 0 approx. : 3 GHz vs 2.3 GHz
- Newer manufacturing process of the processor allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 45 nm vs 65 nm
- PassMark — Single thread mark about 32% faster: 1206 vs 912
- PassMark — CPU mark about 30% better: 2197 vs 1694
- Geekbench 4 — Single Core about 27 % more: 358 vs 283
- About 20% more performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core benchmark: 1191 vs 990
- 3. 3x more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 2.776 vs. 0.833
Issue date | May 2010 vs March 2008 |
Maximum frequency | 3 GHz vs 2.3 GHz |
Process | 45 nm vs 65 nm |
PassMark — Single thread mark | 1206 vs 912 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 2197 vs 1694 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 358 vs 283 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 1191 vs 990 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: AMD Athlon II X4 640
CPU 2: AMD Phenom X4 9650
PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|||
PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|||
Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|||
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
|||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
Name | AMD Athlon II X4 640 | AMD Phenom X4 9650 |
---|---|---|
PassMark — Single thread mark | 1206 | 912 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 2197 | 1694 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 358 | 283 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 1191 | 990 |
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 0 | |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.776 | 0.833 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 7.618 | 8.403 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.17 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.052 |
Performance comparison
AMD Athlon II X4 640 | AMD Phenom X4 9650 | |
---|---|---|
Architecture name | Propus | Agena |
Issue date | May 2010 | March 2008 |
Price at first issue date | $80 | |
Place in the ranking | 2417 | 2448 |
Price now | $239. 95 | |
Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 4.07 | |
Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
Support 64 bit | ||
Crystal area | 169 mm | 285mm |
Level 1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
Level 2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
Process | 45nm | 65nm |
Maximum frequency | 3 GHz | 2. 3 GHz |
Number of cores | 4 | 4 |
Number of transistors | 300 million | 450 million |
Level 3 cache | 2048 KB (shared) | |
Supported memory types | DDR3 | |
Maximum number of processors in | 1 | 1 |
Supported sockets | AM3 | AM2+ |
Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 95 Watt |
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) |
Compare AMD Athlon II X2 240 and AMD Phenom X4 9 Processors650
AMD Athlon II X2 240
2. 8 GHz | 2 cores | AM3
VS
AMD Phenom X4 9650
2.3GHz | 4 cores | Am2+
benchmark
General result
on the basis of 8 tests:
AMD Phenom X4 9650 faster than 11.01%
AMD Athlon II X2 240
100,0002 AMD Phenom X4 9650 -core)
AMD Phenom X4 9650 is 52.63% faster
Reasons to choose AMD Phenom X4 9650
- More cores (4 vs. 2) allows more processes to work simultaneously, speeding up the computer and processing speed
- The larger volume of the level 3 cache (2 MB versus 1 MB) allows the processor to get access to data
characteristics
AMD Athlon II X2 240 | AMD Phenom X4 9650 908 908 9004 9004 9004 9004 908 | 2. 8 GHz | 2.3 GHz | |
Nuclei0038 | sse2 | |||
sse3 | ||||
sse41 | ||||
sse4a | ||||
sse42 | ||||
fma4 | ||||
amd64 | ||||
amd_v | ||||
avx_11 | ||||
f16c | ||||
aes | ||||
cvt16 | ||||
clmul |
Memory handling
AMD Athlon II X2 240 | AMD Phenom X4 9650 | Bus frequency | 2000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Compare AMD Athlon II X3 445 vs AMD Phenom X4 9650
AMD Athlon II X3 445 | AMD Phenom X4 9650 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Both models from the AMD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two Models of the processors were released near one time at the same time0040 | FSB data AMD Phenom X4 9650 — 1800 MHz 16-bit HyperTransport (3. 6 GT/s) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Athlon II X3 445 loses a lot in terms of the number of cores, 3 vs. 4 | Phenom5 9039 seriously superior in terms of number of cores, 4 vs. 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Athlon II X3 445 seriously loses in terms of the number of threads, 3 vs. 4 | Phenom X4 9650 significantly wins in terms of the number of threads, 4 vs. 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Athlon II X3 445 Confidently wins in terms of clock frequency, 3100 MHz in comparison with 2300 megagez | Phenom X4 9650, 2300 MHz in comparison with 3100 MHz | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phenom X4 9650 is less technologically advanced, since its technical process is much larger and is 65 nm | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Athlon II X3 445 has an order of magnitude fewer transistors, 300 million vs. Athlon II X3 445 is not much higher and equals 75 °C | Phenom X4 9650 maximum core temperature threshold is 70 degrees Celsius. Not far behind rival Athlon II X3 445 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the processor model Athlon II X3 445 The crystal area is significantly smaller and equals 169 mm 2 | in the Phenom X4 9650 Crystal, 285 mm 2 | 5
should | The 1st level cache of the Phenom X4 9650 CPU is much larger than that of the Athlon II X3 445 and is equal to 384 KB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The L2 cache of the Athlon II X3 445 processor is much smaller than that of the Phenom X4 9650 and is equal to 1536 KB
Comparison of instructions and technologies
BenchmarksOverall performance ratingThe rating can be calculated according to the formula, taking into account data such as — benchmark test results, socket, auto overclocking technologies, instructions, year of release, number of cores, threads, architecture, frequency, temperature data, and other characteristics. The results of the overall rating showed that the Phenom X4 9650 processor is not much superior to its rival Athlon II X3 445. The Athlon II X3 445 processor itself managed to score 1935.27 points, slightly behind the competitor.
PassMark CPU MarkThe benchmark has a large pool of tools for a comprehensive assessment of computer performance, including the CPU. Among them are integer calculations, extended instruction checking, encryption, floating point calculations, compression, game physics calculations, multi-threaded and single-threaded tests. At the same time, it is possible to compare data with other configurations in a common database. Almost all of our CPUs have been subjected to PassMark tests. This is perhaps the most famous benchmark on the Internet. Performance Test showed a slightly better performance of the Athlon II X3 445 processor (1768 points) over the Phenom X4 9650 (1694 points). The Phenom X4 9650 falls slightly behind in this test.
Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Single-threaded testMAXON appeared, it was based on the 3D editor Cinema 4D. This benchmark for testing video cards and processors is now obsolete. The ray tracing method is used. Works in operating systems Windows, Mac OS X. It is possible to check many processor systems. The main mode of passing tests for speed is a photorealistic rendering of a 3D scene, multilevel reflections, spatial light sources, working with light, simulating global illumination, as well as procedural shaders. The Single version uses only one core and one thread for rendering.
Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Multi-thread testMulti-Thread is another test option in the Cinebench R10 benchmark, which uses a multi-thread and multi-core test method. It is important to note that the number of threads in this version of the program is limited to 16.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Multi-threaded testMulti-threaded version of CINEBENCH R11.5 benchmark, it can test the processor 100%, including all cores and threads. It differs from previous versions of the program, 64 threads are supported here. Testing the Athlon II X3 445 in the Cinebench 11.5 benchmark showed a result of 2.24 points, slightly ahead of its competitor. At this time Phenom X4 9650 gets its 1.94 points, which fully justifies their close positions in the rankings.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-threaded testExcellent fully functional Cinebench R11.5 from Maxon. His tests still have not lost their relevance. In checks, as before, the ray tracing process is used, a high-polygonal 3D room is calculated with a lot of crystalline and glass and translucent balls. In this Single-Core variant, tests are performed using one thread and one core. The result of the check is the value «number of frames per second». The single-thread test results for the Athlon II X3 445 in Cinebench 11.5 Single-Core showed high performance compared to the competitor, with a score of 0.62 points. But the Phenom X4 9 itself650 scoring 0.4 points in this test is far behind it.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-thread testThe Multi Core version of Cinebench R15 will test your build in its entirety, demonstrating everything it can. All CPU cores and threads are used in the process of rendering detailed 3D models. The program is suitable for new multi-thread CPUs from Intel and AMD. can use 256 computation threads. The Athlon II X3 445, with a score of 198.2, doesn’t win much in the multi-threaded Cinebench r15 benchmark. Slightly behind it is the Phenom X4 9 model650 gaining 168.95 points.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-threaded testCinebench 15 is the latest benchmark from the Finnish team Maxon. Using this benchmark, they test the entire system: both video cards and CPU. For the CPU, the result of the analysis will be the value of PTS points, and for video cards, the number of frames per second. FPS. In the Single Core version, one thread is involved in rendering. A complex 3D scene is rendered with a large number of light sources, highly detailed objects and reflections. The single-threaded test of the Athlon II X3 445 processor in the Cinebench R15 program indicates its high performance, the result is 67.23 points. Compared to it, its competitor Phenom X4 9The 650 fails this test with a score of 42.7.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-threaded testThis is already a 64-bit multi-threaded Geekbench 4 test. Its multi-platform support for OS and devices makes Geekbench tests the most common at present. In Geekbench 4 64-bit multi-core, the Athlon II X3 445 received a score of 4579, which is significantly higher than the Phenom X4 9650. In this test, the Phenom X4 9650 receives a very low score of 3559.37 points — compared to Athlon II X3 445.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Single-threaded testFor the first time, Android and iOS tablets and smartphones are also supported in this version of the program. The Single-Core test uses 1 processor thread. The current single-threaded version of Geekbench 4 for testing desktop PCs and laptops. The program, like its earlier versions, runs on systems running Mac OS, Linux, Windows. The Athlon II X3 445 scores higher in the Geekbench 4.0 single-thread test with a score of 1928 points. But its competitor Phenom X4 9650 is doing much worse — 1189.03 points.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Multi-thread testMulti-Thread version of Geekbench 3 — will allow you to make a big stress test of your processor and demonstrate how stable your system is.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Single-threaded testThe 32-bit version of the test loads only one CPU core and one thread. Cross-platform Geekbench is often used to test the system under Mac, but it can work on both Windows and Linux. The main purpose is to test the efficiency of processors.
Geekbench 2On our site you can find about 200 processor models that have test results in this benchmark. An outdated version of the Geekbench 2 benchmark. At the moment, there are newer options, 4v and the fifth.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 1In fact, this is a practical test of system performance by transcoding HD video files to H.264 format or the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. This test is faster than Pass 2 because it encodes at a constant speed. Frame rate processed in sec. — test result. Ideal test for multi-core and multi-thread processors. The MPEG 4 video processing speed of the Athlon II X3 445 is slightly higher than that of the Phenom X4 9650, and amounted to 52. 55 FPS. The Phenom X4 9650 achieved 45.33 FPS, slightly behind the first processor.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2This is a slightly different, slower test based on video file compression. It is important to understand that a real task is being carried out, and the x264 codec is used in a large number of video programs. The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, but the rendering is already done at a non-constant rate. The result is a higher quality video file. The resulting value is also defined in frames per second. And this means that the test results really reflect the performance of the system. During the encoding of a video file by the Athlon II X3 445 processor into mpeg4 format, a processing speed of 12.13 Frames / s was obtained. While Phenom X4 9The 650 trailed slightly behind with 10.64 fps.
3DMark06 CPUBenchmark program for testing video system and CPU. Processors are tested in 2 ways: AI performs a path search, and the second test simulates the system using PhysX. Based on DirectX 9.0 by Finnish team Futuremark. This benchmark is often used by overclockers and gamers and those who like to overclock processors. The Athlon II X3 445 performed slightly faster in the gaming physics, pathfinding tests, scoring up to 2924 points. The Phenom X4 9650 also coped with these tasks, showing a good result of 2755.18 points.
3DMark Fire Strike PhysicsWe can say that about 2 hundred processors on our Internet resource have data in the 3DMark FSP test. This is an exact test that makes calculations in game physics.
WinRAR 4.0A well-known archiver. The compression speed of the RAR algorithm was checked, for these purposes huge amounts of random data were used. The resulting speed during compression «Kb / s» — this is the test indicator. The tests were carried out under Windows OS. Athlon II X3 445 is slightly ahead of the competitor in WinRAR file compression speed, the result of data encoding was 1277.29Kb/s. |