EPYC 9575F vs A10-5800K
Primary details
Comparing A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1982 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.33 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.76 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | $11,791 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F 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 |
| Socket | FM2 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 7660D | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 400 Watt |
A10-5800K has 300% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9575F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that A10-5800K is a desktop processor while EPYC 9575F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5800K and EPYC 9575F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
