EPYC 9654 vs Ryzen 9 3900X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 9 3900X
2019
12 cores / 24 threads, 105 Watt
20.53
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
75.70
+269%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by a whopping 269% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2756
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation21.731.36
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 9AMD EPYC
Power efficiency15.5419.90
Architecture codenameMatisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date7 July 2019 (5 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 3900X has 1498% better value for money than EPYC 9654.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)96
Threads24192
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.6 GHz2.4 GHz
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache768 KB6 MB
L2 cache6 MB96 MB
L3 cache64 MB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 12 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die sizeno data12x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °Cno data
Number of transistors19,200 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketAM4SP5
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR5-4800
Maximum memory size128 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth51.196 GB/s460.8 GB/s

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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.

Ryzen 9 3900X 20.53
EPYC 9654 75.70
+269%

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.

Ryzen 9 3900X 32613
EPYC 9654 120246
+269%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Ryzen 9 3900X 1710
EPYC 9654 1837
+7.4%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Ryzen 9 3900X 9939
EPYC 9654 18836
+89.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.53 75.70
Recency 7 July 2019 10 November 2022
Physical cores 12 96
Threads 24 192
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 360 Watt

Ryzen 9 3900X has 242.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 268.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 3900X in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 9 3900X is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 9654, 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 Ryzen 9 3900X
Ryzen 9 3900X
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.


4.7 5169 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 3900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 995 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 9 3900X or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.