0 Comments
| | Intel Pentium 2117U vs AMD Phenom X4 9850 |
Released September, 2012
Intel Pentium 2117U
- 1.8 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium 2117U
| | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm | | Much lower typical power consumption 13.81W |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Much higher Maximum operating temperature 105 °C |
VS
Released July, 2008
AMD Phenom X4 9850
- 2.5 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the AMD Phenom X4 9850
| | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB | | Higher clock speed 2.5 GHz |
| | Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 4,424 | | More cores 4 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Pentium 2117UCPUBoss Winner | | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much lower typical power consumption | 13.81W | vs | 101.56W | 7.4x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 105 °C | vs | 61 °C | More than 70% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Significantly better performance per watt | 5.2 pt/W | vs | 0.96 pt/W | Around 5.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Newer | Sep, 2012 | vs | Jul, 2008 | Release date over 4 years later | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | vs | 30.11 $/year | 7.4x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 14.89 $/year | vs | 109.5 $/year | 7.4x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Better geekbench 3 single core score | 1,451 | vs | 1,237 | More than 15% better geekbench 3 single core score | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 1 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher clock speed | 2.5 GHz | vs | 1.8 GHz | Around 40% higher clock speed | |||
| Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 4,424 | vs | 2,488 | Around 80% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.72 GHz | vs | 1.85 GHz | More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.88 GHz | vs | 1.8 GHz | Around 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium 2117U vs Phenom X4 9850
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium 2117U
2,488
Phenom X4 9850
4,424
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium 2117U
1,451
Phenom X4 9850
1,237
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium 2117U
93,650 MB/s
Phenom X4 9850
97,500 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium 2117U
2,297
Phenom X4 9850
4,202
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium 2117U
2,755
Phenom X4 9850
5,189
GeekBench
Pentium 2117U
2,755
Phenom X4 9850
5,189
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Pentium 2117U
1,650
Phenom X4 9850
2,895
PassMark (Single Core)
Pentium 2117U
978
Phenom X4 9850
846
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium 2117U | vs | Phenom X4 9850 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.5 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| BGA 1023 | |||
| AM2+ | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| 3DNow! | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 17W | 125W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | 30.11 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 14.89 $/year | 109.5 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 5.2 pt/W | 0.96 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 13.81W | 101.56W | |
details | Pentium 2117U | vs | Phenom X4 9850 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 65 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 105°C | Unknown - 61°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 1.85 GHz | 2.72 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.8 GHz | 2.88 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 1.85 GHz | 2.72 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,000 MHz | N/A | |
| Intel Pentium 2117U | AMD Phenom X4 9850 |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
| VS | |
| $134 | 1 069 грн. | |
| 2117U vs 2310M | ||
| VS | |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 2117U vs 3217U | ||
| VS | |
| $134 | $134 | |
| 2117U vs 2020M | ||
| VS | |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 2117U vs 3337U | ||
| VS | |
| $134 | $75 | |
| 2117U vs 1007U | ||
| VS | |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 2117U vs 3227U | ||
| VS | |
| 2 543 грн. | ||
| 9850 vs 955 | ||
Popular Comparisons
| VS | |
| $305 | 8 031 грн. | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
| VS | |
| 7 281 грн. | 9 369 грн. | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
| VS | |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
| VS | |
| 6 639 грн. | 6 157 грн. | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| 6 692 грн. | 9 369 грн. | |
| 6600K vs 6700K | ||





