EPYC 7F32 vs A10-5800K
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F32 outperforms A10-5800K by a whopping 692% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1980 | 477 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 3.61 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.76 | 7.77 |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | $2,100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7F32 has 1288% better value for money than A10-5800K.
Detailed specifications
A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FM2 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 7660D | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
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 | 1.90 | 15.05 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 14 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 180 Watt |
A10-5800K has 80% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7F32, on the other hand, has a 692.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7F32 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-5800K in performance tests.
Note that A10-5800K is a desktop processor while EPYC 7F32 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5800K and EPYC 7F32, 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.
