EPYC 9175F vs Athlon X2 QL-66
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9175F outperforms Athlon X2 QL-66 by a whopping 10153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3135 | 72 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 7.47 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | 2x AMD Athlon | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 12.29 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Lion (2008−2009) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,256 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Athlon X2 QL-66 and EPYC 9175F 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 512 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 16x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 133,040 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X2 QL-66 and EPYC 9175F 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 | 2 |
| Socket | S1g2 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and EPYC 9175F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and EPYC 9175F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and EPYC 9175F. 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 QL-66 and EPYC 9175F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.40 | 41.01 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 320 Watt |
Athlon X2 QL-66 has 814.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9175F, on the other hand, has a 10152.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9175F is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon X2 QL-66 in performance tests.
Be aware that Athlon X2 QL-66 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9175F is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
