Phenom X4 9650 vs Apple M2
Aggregate performance score
Apple M2 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 by a whopping 771% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M2 and Phenom X4 9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 802 | 2396 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple Apple M-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 44.50 | 1.08 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Agena (2007−2008) |
| Release date | 10 June 2022 (2 years ago) | March 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Apple M2 and Phenom X4 9650 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 | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.424 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.48 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 2 MB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 20 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 285 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 20000 Million | 450 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M2 and Phenom X4 9650 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | AM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 95 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M2 and Phenom X4 9650 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M2 10-Core GPU ( - 1398 MHz) | 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. 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.76 | 1.12 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 95 Watt |
Apple M2 has a 771.4% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 1200% more advanced lithography process, and 375% lower power consumption.
The Apple M2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom X4 9650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M2 is a notebook processor while Phenom X4 9650 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M2 and Phenom X4 9650, 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.
