Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1950X outperforms Phenom II X4 925 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is 3013 days newer than Phenom II X4 925.
Advantages of AMD Phenom II X4 925
- Consumes up to 47% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - 95 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
- Performs up to 17% better in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 than Phenom II X4 925 - 103 vs 88 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Phenom II X4 925 - 32 vs 4 threads
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Phenom II X4 925
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Phenom II X4 925
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
Single-Core
320
27.327070879590092%
Multi-Core
930
12.335853561480302%
AMD Phenom II X4 925 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| May 11th, 2009 | Release Date | Aug 10th, 2017 |
| Phenom II X4 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
| Deneb | Codename | Whitehaven |
| AMD Socket AM3 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 16 |
| 4 | Threads | 32 |
| 2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 180 W |
| 45 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 14.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
