EPYC 9135 vs A8-7680
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9135 outperforms A8-7680 by a whopping 1532% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-7680 and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1835 | 96 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.78 | 29.27 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD A8 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.71 | 17.30 |
| Architecture codename | Excavator (2017−2018) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 26 October 2018 (6 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $56 | $1,214 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9135 has 85% better value for money than A8-7680.
Detailed specifications
A8-7680 and EPYC 9135 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.65 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | 38 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 16,630 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-7680 and EPYC 9135 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 | 2 |
| Socket | FM2+ | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-7680 and EPYC 9135. 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 A8-7680 and EPYC 9135 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-7680 and EPYC 9135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 14.936 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon R7 Series | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-7680 and EPYC 9135.
| 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 | 2.24 | 36.56 |
| Recency | 26 October 2018 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 200 Watt |
A8-7680 has 344.4% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 1532.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-7680 in performance tests.
Note that A8-7680 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9135 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-7680 and EPYC 9135, 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.
