EPYC 9645 vs Athlon 64 X2 4200+

VS

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2940not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.49no data
Architecture codenameManchester (2005−2006)Turin (2024)
Release dateDecember 2006 (18 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$309$11,048

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645 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 cores2 (Dual-core)96
Threads2192
Base clock speedno data2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache256K80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography90 nm3 nm
Die size220 mm2no data
Number of transistors154 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645 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
Socket939SP5
Power consumption (TDP)89 Watt320 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 96
Threads 2 192
Chip lithography 90 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 89 Watt 320 Watt

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ has 259.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9645, on the other hand, has 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 2900% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Athlon 64 X2 4200+ is a desktop processor while EPYC 9645 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and EPYC 9645, 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 Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
AMD EPYC 9645
EPYC 9645

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.


3.2 149 votes

Rate Athlon 64 X2 4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9645 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 X2 4200+ or EPYC 9645, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.