EPYC 9965 vs FX-6200

VS

Primary details

Comparing FX-6200 and EPYC 9965 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1726not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.95no data
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Turin (2024)
Release date27 February 2012 (12 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$14,813

Detailed specifications

FX-6200 and EPYC 9965 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)192
Threads6384
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2.25 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache288 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache6144 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache8192 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm3 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.3 V - Max: 1.4125 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-6200 and EPYC 9965 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
SocketAM3+SP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt500 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6200 and EPYC 9965. 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 FX-6200 and EPYC 9965 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6200 and EPYC 9965. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6200 and EPYC 9965.

PCIe versionn/a5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 27 February 2012 10 October 2024
Physical cores 6 192
Threads 6 384
Chip lithography 32 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 500 Watt

FX-6200 has 300% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9965, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between FX-6200 and EPYC 9965. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that FX-6200 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9965 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6200 and EPYC 9965, 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 FX-6200
FX-6200
AMD EPYC 9965
EPYC 9965

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.


4.2 134 votes

Rate FX-6200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 20 votes

Rate EPYC 9965 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-6200 or EPYC 9965, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.