EPYC 9654 vs Athlon 64 X2 FX-60
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9654 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 by a whopping 13193% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2810 | 6 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.28 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.49 | 19.89 |
| Architecture codename | Toledo (2006) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $11,805 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | no data | 6 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 96 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 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 configuration | no data | 2 |
| Socket | no data | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and EPYC 9654. 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 Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and EPYC 9654.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.58 | 77.10 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 360 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 has 227.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 13193.1% higher aggregate performance score, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 1700% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 and EPYC 9654, 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.
