EPYC 9655P vs Atom x5-Z8300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom x5-Z8300
2015
4 cores / 4 threads
0.51
EPYC 9655P
2024
96 cores / 192 threads, 400 Watt
100.00
+19508%

EPYC 9655P outperforms Atom x5-Z8300 by a whopping 19508% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28631
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.47
Market segmentLaptopServer
Series5x Intel Atomno data
Power efficiencyno data23.56
Architecture codenameCherry Trail (2015−2016)Turin (2024)
Release date2 March 2015 (9 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$10,811

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)96
Threads4192
Base clock speed1.44 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.84 GHz4.5 GHz
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data12x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data99,780 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketUTFCBGA592SP5
Power consumption (TDP)no data400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

Secure Boot+no data
Identity Protection+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size2 GBno data
Max memory channels1no data
Maximum memory bandwidth12.8 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD GraphicsN/A
Max video memory2 GBno data
Graphics max frequency500 MHzno data
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

Max resolution over HDMI 1.41920x1080no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes1128
USB revision3.0no data

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.

Atom x5-Z8300 0.51
EPYC 9655P 100.00
+19508%

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.

Atom x5-Z8300 814
EPYC 9655P 158260
+19342%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.51 100.00
Recency 2 March 2015 10 October 2024
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm

EPYC 9655P has a 19507.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9655P is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom x5-Z8300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Atom x5-Z8300 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9655P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x5-Z8300 and EPYC 9655P, 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.


Intel Atom x5-Z8300
Atom x5-Z8300
AMD EPYC 9655P
EPYC 9655P

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.


3.6 48 votes

Rate Atom x5-Z8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 39 votes

Rate EPYC 9655P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom x5-Z8300 or EPYC 9655P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.