i3-7102E vs Phenom II X4 920
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-7102E outperforms Phenom II X4 920 by a moderate 18% 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 | 2447 | 2298 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.49 | 0.14 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i3 |
| Power efficiency | 0.42 | 2.50 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $90 | $225 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Phenom II X4 920 has 3107% better value for money than i3-7102E.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 920 and Core i3-7102E 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 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 3 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 920 and Core i3-7102E 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Core i3-7102E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Core i3-7102E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Core i3-7102E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Intel HD Graphics 630 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 920 and Core i3-7102E.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.25 | 1.48 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 3 January 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 25 Watt |
Phenom II X4 920 has 100% more physical cores.
i3-7102E, on the other hand, has a 18.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Intel Core i3-7102E is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Phenom II X4 920 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X4 920 is a desktop processor while Core i3-7102E is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
