EPYC 7282 vs Athlon II X4 635

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X4 635
2010
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.44
EPYC 7282
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 120 Watt
19.55
+1258%

EPYC 7282 outperforms Athlon II X4 635 by a whopping 1258% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2206298
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.8614.81
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.4115.13
Architecture codenamePropus (2009−2011)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date25 January 2010 (14 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70$650

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7282 has 418% better value for money than Athlon II X4 635.

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads432
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz3.2 GHz
Multiplierno data28
L1 cache128 KB (per core)1 MB
L2 cache512 KB (per core)8 MB
L3 cache0 KB64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size169 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors300 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282 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 (Multiprocessor)
SocketAM3TR4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282. 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 Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282.

PCIe version2.0no data

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 X4 635 1.44
EPYC 7282 19.55
+1258%

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 X4 635 2237
EPYC 7282 30474
+1262%

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 X4 635 296
EPYC 7282 1096
+270%

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 X4 635 863
EPYC 7282 8073
+835%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.44 19.55
Recency 25 January 2010 7 August 2019
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 4 32
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 120 Watt

Athlon II X4 635 has 26.3% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7282, on the other hand, has a 1257.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7282 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 635 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon II X4 635 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7282 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 635 and EPYC 7282, 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 X4 635
Athlon II X4 635
AMD EPYC 7282
EPYC 7282

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.


3.7 218 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 635 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 45 votes

Rate EPYC 7282 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II X4 635 or EPYC 7282, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.