EPYC 7773X vs Athlon II X3 435

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X3 435
2009
3 cores / 3 threads, 95 Watt
1.06
EPYC 7773X
2022
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
59.15
+5480%

EPYC 7773X outperforms Athlon II X3 435 by a whopping 5480% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking233016
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.7217.21
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Architecture codenameRana (2009−2011)Milan-X (2022)
Release dateOctober 2009 (14 years ago)22 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$160no data
Current price$17.65 (0.1x MSRP)$1950

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7773X has 156% better value for money than Athlon II X3 435.

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X 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 cores3 (Tri-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads3128
Base clock speedno data2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB768 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm
Die size169 mm28x 81 mm2
Number of transistors300 million33,200 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X 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
SocketAM3SP3
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NIno data+
AVXno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X.

PCIe versionno data4.0
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.

Athlon II X3 435 1.06
EPYC 7773X 59.15
+5480%

EPYC 7773X outperforms Athlon II X3 435 by 5480% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Athlon II X3 435 1644
EPYC 7773X 91491
+5465%

EPYC 7773X outperforms Athlon II X3 435 by 5465% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Athlon II X3 435 325
EPYC 7773X 1496
+360%

EPYC 7773X outperforms Athlon II X3 435 by 360% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Athlon II X3 435 834
EPYC 7773X 14825
+1678%

EPYC 7773X outperforms Athlon II X3 435 by 1678% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.06 59.15
Physical cores 3 64
Threads 3 128
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 280 Watt

The EPYC 7773X is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X3 435 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon II X3 435 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7773X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X3 435 and EPYC 7773X, 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 II X3 435
Athlon II X3 435
AMD EPYC 7773X
EPYC 7773X

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.


3.9 149 votes

Rate Athlon II X3 435 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 23 votes

Rate EPYC 7773X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II X3 435 or EPYC 7773X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.