EPYC 9555 vs i3-530

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i3-530
2010
2 cores / 4 threads, 73 Watt
0.94
EPYC 9555
2024
64 cores / 128 threads, 360 Watt
83.20
+8751%

EPYC 9555 outperforms Core i3-530 by a whopping 8751% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25366
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.143.04
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.2322.04
Architecture codenameClarkdale (2010−2011)Turin (2024)
Release date7 January 2010 (15 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$60$9,826

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9555 has 2071% better value for money than i3-530.

Detailed specifications

Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555 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)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads4128
Base clock speed2.93 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed0.93 GHz4.4 GHz
Bus rate2.5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size81 mm28x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature73 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 million66,520 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
VID voltage range0.65V-1.4Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555 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
SocketFCLGA1156SP5
Power consumption (TDP)73 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vPro-no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size16.38 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel ProcessorsN/A
Clear Video HD+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes16128

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.

i3-530 0.94
EPYC 9555 83.20
+8751%

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.

i3-530 1502
EPYC 9555 133253
+8772%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.94 83.20
Recency 7 January 2010 10 October 2024
Physical cores 2 64
Threads 4 128
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 73 Watt 360 Watt

i3-530 has 393.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9555, on the other hand, has a 8751.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, 3100% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9555 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-530 in performance tests.

Note that Core i3-530 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9555 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-530 and EPYC 9555, 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.


Intel Core i3-530
Core i3-530
AMD EPYC 9555
EPYC 9555

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 455 votes

Rate Core i3-530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate EPYC 9555 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i3-530 or EPYC 9555, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.