Athlon 64 X2 5600+ vs Phenom X4 9650

Place in the ranking	2416	2832
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Market segment	Desktop processor	Desktop processor
Power efficiency	1.09	0.61
Architecture codename	Agena (2007−2008)	Windsor (2006−2007)
Release date	March 2008 (16 years ago)	December 2006 (18 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 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
Boost clock speed	2.3 GHz	2.9 GHz
L1 cache	128 KB (per core)	256 KB
L2 cache	512 KB (per core)	512K
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	0 KB
Chip lithography	65 nm	90 nm
Die size	285 mm²	220 mm²
Number of transistors	450 million	227 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 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	AM2+	AM2
Power consumption (TDP)	95 Watt	89 Watt

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon 64 X2 5600+ are enumerated here.

AMD-V

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.

Phenom X4 9650 1.09
+91.2%

Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 0.57

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.

Phenom X4 9650 1733
+91.9%

Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 903

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.

Phenom X4 9650 238
+3%

Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 231

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.

Phenom X4 9650 758
+89%

Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 401

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.09	0.57
Physical cores	4	2
Threads	4	2
Chip lithography	65 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	95 Watt	89 Watt

Phenom X4 9650 has a 91.2% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon 64 X2 5600+, on the other hand, has 6.7% lower power consumption.

The Phenom X4 9650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 5600+ in performance tests.

Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9650 and Athlon 64 X2 5600+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.