EPYC 9654 vs A8-3800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3800
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.29
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
75.70
+5768%

EPYC 9654 outperforms A8-3800 by a whopping 5768% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3800 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22866
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.36
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.8819.90
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date30 June 2011 (13 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A8-3800 and EPYC 9654 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 speed2.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz2.4 GHz
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache128 KB (per core)6 MB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)96 MB
L3 cache0 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size228 mm212x 72 mm2
Number of transistors1,178 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on A8-3800 and EPYC 9654 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 configuration12
SocketFM1SP5
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3800 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3800 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3800 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6550Dno data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3800 and EPYC 9654.

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.

A8-3800 1.29
EPYC 9654 75.70
+5768%

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.

A8-3800 2049
EPYC 9654 120246
+5769%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A8-3800 291
EPYC 9654 1837
+531%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A8-3800 889
EPYC 9654 18836
+2019%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.29 75.70
Recency 30 June 2011 10 November 2022
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 360 Watt

A8-3800 has 453.8% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 5768.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-3800 in performance tests.

Note that A8-3800 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3800 and EPYC 9654, 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 A8-3800
A8-3800
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.


3.4 71 vote

Rate A8-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 995 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-3800 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.