EPYC 7662 vs A8-3500M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3500M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.79
EPYC 7662
2020
64 cores / 128 threads, 225 Watt
40.98
+5087%

EPYC 7662 outperforms A8-3500M by a whopping 5087% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking277367
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD EPYC
Power efficiency0.967.72
DesignerAMDAMD
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date14 June 2011 (14 years ago)19 February 2020 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-3500M and EPYC 7662 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads4128
Base clock speed1.5 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz3.3 GHz
Multiplierno data20
L1 cache128 KB (per core)4 MB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)32 MB
L3 cache0 KB256 MB
Chip lithography32 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size228 mm2no data
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on A8-3500M and EPYC 7662 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 configuration1no data
SocketFS1Socket SP3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3500M and EPYC 7662. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620Gno data
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3500M and EPYC 7662 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3500M and EPYC 7662. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz)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.

A8-3500M 0.79
EPYC 7662 40.98
+5087%

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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

A8-3500M 1394
EPYC 7662 72298
+5086%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.79 40.98
Recency 14 June 2011 19 February 2020
Physical cores 4 64
Threads 4 128
Chip lithography 32 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 225 Watt

A8-3500M has 542.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7662, on the other hand, has a 5087.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.

The AMD EPYC 7662 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A8-3500M in performance tests.

Be aware that A8-3500M is a notebook processor while EPYC 7662 is a server/workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A8-3500M
A8-3500M
AMD EPYC 7662
EPYC 7662

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 128 votes

Rate A8-3500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 12 votes

Rate EPYC 7662 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors A8-3500M and EPYC 7662, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.