Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Phenom II X4 910
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX outperforms Phenom II X4 910 by a whopping 4604% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2392 | 27 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.09 | 6.04 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 1.12 | 17.81 |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 9 February 2009 (15 years ago) | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $100 | $5,500 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 6611% better value for money than Phenom II X4 910.
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 27 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX 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 | sWRX8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2, XFR 2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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 | 1.12 | 52.69 |
| Recency | 9 February 2009 | 14 July 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 280 Watt |
Phenom II X4 910 has 194.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX, on the other hand, has a 4604.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X4 910 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X4 910 is a desktop processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 910 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX, 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.
