AMD Phenom X4 9500 vs AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Comparative analysis of AMD Phenom X4 9500 and AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Compatibility, Virtualization. Benchmark processor performance analysis: 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).

AMD Phenom X4 9500

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Phenom X4 9500

CPU is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
2 more cores, run more applications at once: 4 vs 2
Around 10% higher clock speed: 2.2 GHz vs 2 GHz
A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 65 nm vs 90 nm
2x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
2x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
Around 4% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 203 vs 195
Around 83% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 651 vs 356
2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 4.363 vs 1.694
Around 65% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1.623 vs 0.981

Specifications (specs)
Launch date	November 2007 vs May 2006
Number of cores	4 vs 2
Maximum frequency	2.2 GHz vs 2 GHz
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm vs 90 nm
L1 cache	128 KB (per core) vs 256 KB
L2 cache	512 KB (per core) vs 1024 KB
Benchmarks
Geekbench 4 - Single Core	203 vs 195
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core	651 vs 356
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	4.363 vs 1.694
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	1.623 vs 0.981

Reasons to consider the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Around 7% lower typical power consumption: 89 Watt vs 95 Watt
2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 0.912 vs 0.396
Around 80% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.054 vs 0.03

Specifications (specs)
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	89 Watt vs 95 Watt
Benchmarks
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	0.912 vs 0.396
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	0.054 vs 0.03

Compare benchmarks

CPU 1: AMD Phenom X4 9500
CPU 2: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Geekbench 4 - Single Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

203

195

Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

651

356

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

0.396

0.912

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

4.363

1.694

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

0.03

0.054

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

1.623

0.981

Name	AMD Phenom X4 9500	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Geekbench 4 - Single Core	203	195
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core	651	356
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	0.396	0.912
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	4.363	1.694
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	0.03	0.054
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	0.188
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	1.623	0.981

Compare specifications (specs)

	AMD Phenom X4 9500	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Essentials
Architecture codename	Agena	Windsor
Launch date	November 2007	May 2006
Place in performance rating	3311	3312
Vertical segment	Desktop	Desktop
Performance
64 bit support
Die size	285 mm	220 mm
L1 cache	128 KB (per core)	256 KB
L2 cache	512 KB (per core)	1024 KB
L3 cache	2048 KB (shared)
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	90 nm
Maximum frequency	2.2 GHz	2 GHz
Number of cores	4	2
Transistor count	450 million	154 million
Compatibility
Max number of CPUs in a configuration	1	1
Sockets supported	AM2+	AM2
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	95 Watt	89 Watt
Virtualization
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)