EPYC 9654 vs A6-3420M

VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-3420M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.81
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
75.73
+9249%

EPYC 9654 outperforms A6-3420M by a whopping 9249% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-3420M and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25886
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.29
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.1919.91
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date20 December 2011 (12 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A6-3420M 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)96
Threads4192
Base clock speed1.5 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz3.7 GHz
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size228 mm212x 72 mm2
Number of transistors1,178 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on A6-3420M 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 configuration12
SocketFS1SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-3420M and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480Gno data
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-3420M and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-3420M and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6520Gno data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-3420M 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.

A6-3420M 0.81
EPYC 9654 75.73
+9249%

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.

A6-3420M 1294
EPYC 9654 120295
+9196%

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.

A6-3420M 239
EPYC 9654 1837
+669%

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.

A6-3420M 625
EPYC 9654 18836
+2914%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.81 75.73
Recency 20 December 2011 10 November 2022
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 360 Watt

A6-3420M has 928.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 9249.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-3420M in performance tests.

Be aware that A6-3420M is a notebook processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-3420M 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 A6-3420M
A6-3420M
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.


3.6 196 votes

Rate A6-3420M 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 A6-3420M or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.