Phenom II X4 920 vs Ryzen 5 1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Phenom II X4 920 by a whopping 471% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 923 | 2194 |
| Place by popularity | 51 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.24 | 4.49 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 16 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 8 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $219 | $90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 1600 has 17% better value for money than Phenom II X4 920.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 920 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 | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.8 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 | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 258 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4800 Million | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 920 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 | Socket AM4 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 920. 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 920 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 920. 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 | + | - |
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 Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 920.
| 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.
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 | 7.94 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 16 March 2017 | 8 January 2009 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Ryzen 5 1600 has a 471.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X4 920 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and Phenom II X4 920, 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.
