EPYC 9655P vs A8-3520M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3520M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.93
EPYC 9655P
2024
96 cores / 192 threads, 400 Watt
100.00
+10653%

EPYC 9655P outperforms A8-3520M by a whopping 10653% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25191
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.42
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD A-Seriesno data
Power efficiency2.4723.22
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Turin (2024)
Release date20 December 2011 (12 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$10,811

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P 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)96
Threads4192
Base clock speed1.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz4.5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size228 mm212x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors1,178 million99,780 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P 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 configuration11
SocketFS1SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P. 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 A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6620GN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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.

A8-3520M 0.93
EPYC 9655P 100.00
+10653%

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.

A8-3520M 1448
EPYC 9655P 155878
+10665%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.93 100.00
Recency 20 December 2011 10 October 2024
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 400 Watt

A8-3520M has 1042.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has a 10652.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9655P is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-3520M in performance tests.

Be aware that A8-3520M is a notebook processor while EPYC 9655P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3520M and EPYC 9655P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 A8-3520M
A8-3520M
AMD EPYC 9655P
EPYC 9655P

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.

Community ratings

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


3.6 103 votes

Rate A8-3520M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9655P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-3520M or EPYC 9655P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.