Phenom X4 9650 vs PRO A6-8570

VS

Aggregate performance score

PRO A6-8570
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
1.20
+11.1%
Phenom X4 9650
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.08

PRO A6-8570 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23352402
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.751.08
Architecture codenameCarrizo (2015−2018)Agena (2007−2008)
Release dateOctober 2018 (6 years ago)March 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

PRO A6-8570 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed3.5 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz2.3 GHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1024 KB512 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm65 nm
Die size250 mm2285 mm2
Number of transistors3,100 million450 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-

Compatibility

Information on PRO A6-8570 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 configuration11
SocketAM4AM2+
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400no data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 Graphicsno data
iGPU core count6no data
Switchable graphics+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPortn/a-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650.

PCIe version3.0no 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.

PRO A6-8570 1.20
+11.1%
Phenom X4 9650 1.08

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.

PRO A6-8570 1906
+10.7%
Phenom X4 9650 1721

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.20 1.08
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 95 Watt

PRO A6-8570 has a 11.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

Phenom X4 9650, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The PRO A6-8570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom X4 9650 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between PRO A6-8570 and Phenom X4 9650, 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 PRO A6-8570
PRO A6-8570
AMD Phenom X4 9650
Phenom X4 9650

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.


3.9 32 votes

Rate PRO A6-8570 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 225 votes

Rate Phenom X4 9650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about PRO A6-8570 or Phenom X4 9650, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.