EPYC 9654 vs Athlon II M320

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II M320
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.47
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
75.70
+16006%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Athlon II M320 by a whopping 16006% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II M320 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29256
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.36
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD Athlon IIAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.2719.89
Architecture codenameCaspian (2009)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date10 September 2009 (15 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

Athlon II M320 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 cores2 (Dual-core)96
Threads2192
Base clock speedno data2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus rate3200 MHzno data
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache128 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die sizeno data12x 72 mm2
Number of transistorsno data78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II M320 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 configurationno data2
SocketSocket S1 (S1g3)SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II M320 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualizationno data
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
PowerNow+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II M320 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II M320 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR2DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II M320 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.

Athlon II M320 0.47
EPYC 9654 75.70
+16006%

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.

Athlon II M320 749
EPYC 9654 120246
+15954%

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.

Athlon II M320 182
EPYC 9654 1837
+909%

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.

Athlon II M320 325
EPYC 9654 18836
+5696%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.47 75.70
Recency 10 September 2009 10 November 2022
Physical cores 2 96
Threads 2 192
Chip lithography 45 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 360 Watt

Athlon II M320 has 928.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 16006.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II M320 in performance tests.

Be aware that Athlon II M320 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II M320 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 Athlon II M320
Athlon II M320
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.


3.5 32 votes

Rate Athlon II M320 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 Athlon II M320 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.