EPYC 4364P vs FX-9800P

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-9800P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.66
EPYC 4364P
2024
8 cores / 16 threads, 105 Watt
23.60
+1322%

EPYC 4364P outperforms FX-9800P by a whopping 1322% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-9800P and EPYC 4364P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2083225
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data45.99
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency10.0920.50
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-9800P and EPYC 4364P 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads416
Base clock speed2.7 GHz4.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz5.4 GHz
L1 cache320 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per module)1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data32 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm5 nm
Die size250 mm271 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data61 °C
Number of transistors3,100 million6,570 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on FX-9800P and EPYC 4364P 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 configuration11
SocketFP4AM5
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9800P and EPYC 4364P. 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-9800P and EPYC 4364P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9800P and EPYC 4364P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)AMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9800P and EPYC 4364P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes828

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.

FX-9800P 1.66
EPYC 4364P 23.60
+1322%

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.

FX-9800P 2543
EPYC 4364P 36124
+1321%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.66 23.60
Integrated graphics card 1.95 1.98
Recency 31 May 2016 21 May 2024
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 16
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 105 Watt

FX-9800P has 600% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4364P, on the other hand, has a 1321.7% higher aggregate performance score, 1.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 4364P is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9800P in performance tests.

Be aware that FX-9800P is a notebook processor while EPYC 4364P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9800P and EPYC 4364P, 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-9800P
FX-9800P
AMD EPYC 4364P
EPYC 4364P

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 44 votes

Rate FX-9800P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 4364P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9800P or EPYC 4364P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.