Ryzen 9 7950X vs Athlon II X4 641

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X4 641
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 100 Watt
1.46
Ryzen 9 7950X
2022
16 cores / 32 threads, 170 Watt
39.47
+2603%

Ryzen 9 7950X outperforms Athlon II X4 641 by a whopping 2603% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking216766
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.3821.97
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Raphael (Zen 4) (2022)
Release date6 February 2012 (12 years ago)27 September 2022 (2 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads432
Base clock speed2.8 GHz4.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz5.7 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm
Die size228 mm2CCD = 2x 70 sq. mm, I/O = 122 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data95 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data47 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million13140 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X 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 configuration11
SocketFM1AM5
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt170 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataCCD = 5 nm, I/O = 6 nm, 0.650 - 1.475 V
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-5200

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data24

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.

Athlon II X4 641 1.46
Ryzen 9 7950X 39.47
+2603%

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.

Athlon II X4 641 2313
Ryzen 9 7950X 62704
+2611%

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.

Athlon II X4 641 374
Ryzen 9 7950X 2985
+698%

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.

Athlon II X4 641 1256
Ryzen 9 7950X 19454
+1449%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.46 39.47
Recency 6 February 2012 27 September 2022
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 4 32
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 170 Watt

Athlon II X4 641 has 70% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 9 7950X, on the other hand, has a 2603.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 9 7950X is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 641 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 641 and Ryzen 9 7950X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon II X4 641
Athlon II X4 641
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X
Ryzen 9 7950X

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 145 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 641 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 1605 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 7950X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II X4 641 or Ryzen 9 7950X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.