Phenom II X2 X640 BE vs Athlon X4 950
Aggregate performance score
Athlon X4 950 outperforms Phenom II X2 X640 BE by a whopping 126% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 950 and Phenom II X2 X640 BE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1828 | 2469 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.66 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | 2x AMD Phenom II |
| Power efficiency | 3.29 | 2.10 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Champlain (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 May 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $60 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 950 and Phenom II X2 X640 BE 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 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 3600 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 950 and Phenom II X2 X640 BE 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | S1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 950 and Phenom II X2 X640 BE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE1-3A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 950 and Phenom II X2 X640 BE are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 950 and Phenom II X2 X640 BE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.26 | 1.00 |
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 12 May 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 45 Watt |
Athlon X4 950 has a 126% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.
Phenom II X2 X640 BE, on the other hand, has 44.4% lower power consumption.
The Athlon X4 950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X2 X640 BE in performance tests.
Note that Athlon X4 950 is a desktop processor while Phenom II X2 X640 BE is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 950 and Phenom II X2 X640 BE, 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.
