EPYC 9655 vs FX-9830P

VS

Primary details

Comparing FX-9830P and EPYC 9655 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1870not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency5.68no data
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Turin (2024)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$11,852

Detailed specifications

FX-9830P and EPYC 9655 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)96
Threads4192
Base clock speed3 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz4.5 GHz
L1 cache320 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per module)1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm4 nm
Die size250 mm212x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,100 million99,780 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on FX-9830P and EPYC 9655 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
SocketFP4SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 9655. 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-9830P and EPYC 9655 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 9655. 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 cardAMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 9655.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes8128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 31 May 2016 10 October 2024
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 400 Watt

FX-9830P has 1042.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9655, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between FX-9830P and EPYC 9655. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that FX-9830P is a notebook processor while EPYC 9655 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9830P and EPYC 9655, 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-9830P
FX-9830P
AMD EPYC 9655
EPYC 9655

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.


3.6 113 votes

Rate FX-9830P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 12 votes

Rate EPYC 9655 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9830P or EPYC 9655, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.