EPYC 9354P vs A10-9700
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9354P outperforms A10-9700 by a whopping 1995% 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 | 2142 | 83 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.64 | 16.01 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.32 | 6.44 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (8 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $90 | $2,730 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9354P has 340% better value for money than A10-9700.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.25 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.25 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 32.5 |
| L1 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 32 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 8x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 52,560 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P 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 | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | no data |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-9700 and EPYC 9354P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.04 | 42.73 |
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 32 |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 280 Watt |
A10-9700 has 331% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9354P, on the other hand, has a 1995% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9354P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A10-9700 in performance tests.
Note that A10-9700 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9354P 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.
