EPYC 9475F vs Athlon 900

VS

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Architecture codenameThunderbird (1999−2000)Turin (2024)
Release date6 March 2000 (24 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899$7,592

Detailed specifications

Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F 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 cores1 (Single-Core)48 (Octatetraconta-Core)
Threads196
Base clock speedno data3.65 GHz
Boost clock speed0.9 GHz4.8 GHz
L1 cache128 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography180 nm4 nm
Die size102 mm28x 70.6 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)70 °Cno data
Number of transistors22 million66,520 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F 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
SocketASP5
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F. 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 900 and EPYC 9475F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 March 2000 10 October 2024
Physical cores 1 48
Threads 1 96
Chip lithography 180 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 400 Watt

Athlon 900 has 566.7% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9475F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 24 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 4400% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Athlon 900 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9475F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 900 and EPYC 9475F, 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 900
Athlon 900
AMD EPYC 9475F
EPYC 9475F

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.


5 1 vote

Rate Athlon 900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9475F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 900 or EPYC 9475F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.