EPYC 9275F vs A4-9120C
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9275F outperforms A4-9120C by a whopping 9980% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2871 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.07 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.58 | 16.22 |
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 6 January 2019 (6 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,439 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | 16 | no data |
| L1 cache | 160 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 124.5 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1200 Million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F 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 | no data | 2 |
| Socket | BGA | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Virtualization, | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 14.936 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 600 MHz) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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 | 0.54 | 54.43 |
| Recency | 6 January 2019 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 320 Watt |
A4-9120C has 5233.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has a 9979.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9275F is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-9120C in performance tests.
Be aware that A4-9120C is a notebook processor while EPYC 9275F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-9120C and EPYC 9275F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
