Athlon XP 1700+ vs EPYC 9754
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9754 outperforms Athlon XP 1700+ by a whopping 57391% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 12 | 3369 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.09 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 16.54 | 0.16 |
| Architecture codename | Bergamo (2023) | Thoroughbred (2001−2002) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (1 year ago) | October 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,900 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 | 128 | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 256 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.25 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 1.47 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 180 nm |
| Die size | 8x 73 mm2 | 150 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 71,000 million | 37 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 64 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+. 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 EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 63.24 | 0.11 |
| Physical cores | 128 | 1 |
| Threads | 256 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 64 Watt |
EPYC 9754 has a 57390.9% higher aggregate performance score, 12700% more physical cores and 25500% more threads, and a 3500% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon XP 1700+, on the other hand, has 462.5% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9754 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon XP 1700+ in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9754 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon XP 1700+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and Athlon XP 1700+, 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.
