EPYC Embedded 8534P vs Athlon X2 L310
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3213 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | 2x AMD Athlon | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.53 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Conesus (2009) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 4x 73 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 75 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 35,500 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | BGA / 638 lidless micro-PGA | SP6 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Virtualization, Enhanced Virus Protection | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 96 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 September 2009 | 1 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 64 |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13 Watt | 200 Watt |
Athlon X2 L310 has 1438.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC Embedded 8534P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 15 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon X2 L310 is a notebook processor while EPYC Embedded 8534P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X2 L310 and EPYC Embedded 8534P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
