Xeon w9-3495X vs Athlon II X4 635
Aggregate performance score
Xeon w9-3495X outperforms Athlon II X4 635 by a whopping 3996% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2206 | 21 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.86 | 18.69 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.41 | 15.65 |
| Architecture codename | Propus (2009−2011) | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 25 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 February 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | $5,889 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon w9-3495X has 553% better value for money than Athlon II X4 635.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X 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) | 56 (Hexapentaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 112 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 1.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 105 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 4x 477 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 81 °C |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X 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 | AM3 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 350 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 112 |
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.
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 | 1.44 | 58.98 |
| Recency | 25 January 2010 | 15 February 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 56 |
| Threads | 4 | 112 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 350 Watt |
Athlon II X4 635 has 268.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon w9-3495X, on the other hand, has a 3995.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and 1300% more physical cores and 2700% more threads.
The Xeon w9-3495X is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 635 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon II X4 635 is a desktop processor while Xeon w9-3495X is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 635 and Xeon w9-3495X, 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.
