EPYC 9335 vs Athlon X4 880K

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1792not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency2.29no data
Architecture codenameGodaveri (2014−2016)Turin (2024)
Release dateDecember 2015 (8 years ago)10 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$3,178

Detailed specifications

Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335 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)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads464
Base clock speed4 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz4.4 GHz
L1 cache256K80 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm4 nm
Die size245 mm24x 70.6 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistors2,411 million33,260 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335 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
SocketFM2+SP5
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt210 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-2133DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes16128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 32
Threads 4 64
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 210 Watt

Athlon X4 880K has 121.1% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9335, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Athlon X4 880K is a desktop processor while EPYC 9335 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 880K and EPYC 9335, 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 X4 880K
Athlon X4 880K
AMD EPYC 9335
EPYC 9335

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.


3.1 50 votes

Rate Athlon X4 880K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9335 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon X4 880K or EPYC 9335, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.