Phenom II X4 840T vs Ryzen 5 1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Phenom II X4 840T by a whopping 419% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 960 | 2160 |
| Place by popularity | 55 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.64 | 2.28 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.20 | 1.48 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Zosma (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 16 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 September 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $219 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 1600 has 104% better value for money than Phenom II X4 840T.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 32 | no data |
| L1 cache | 576 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 346 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4800 Million | 904 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.73 | 1.49 |
| Recency | 16 March 2017 | 1 September 2010 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Ryzen 5 1600 has a 418.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X4 840T in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 840T, 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.
