EPYC 7301 vs A10-4655M
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7301 outperforms A10-4655M by a whopping 802% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2769 | 1049 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.36 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD A-Series | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.60 | 2.13 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 15 May 2012 (14 years ago) | 29 June 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $825 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of A10-4655M and EPYC 7301: 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 22 |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A10-4655M and EPYC 7301 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 | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | FP2 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 170 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-4655M and EPYC 7301. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-4655M and EPYC 7301 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-4655M and EPYC 7301. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | unknown Dual-channel | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 170.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 7620G (360 - 497 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-4655M and EPYC 7301.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 8.57 |
| Recency | 15 May 2012 | 29 June 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 170 Watt |
A10-4655M has 580% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7301, on the other hand, has a 802% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 129% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7301 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A10-4655M in performance tests.
Be aware that A10-4655M is a notebook processor while EPYC 7301 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
