EPYC 9654 vs E2-3200
Aggregated performance score
EPYC 9654 outperforms E2-3200 by 12632% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E2-3200 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2656 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.30 | 10.11 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Genoa |
| Release date | 7 September 2011 (12 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $11,805 |
| Current price | $22 | $4544 (0.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9654 has 678% better value for money than E2-3200.
Detailed specifications
E2-3200 and EPYC 9654 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) | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 6 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 96 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on E2-3200 and EPYC 9654 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | FM1 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3200 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3200 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3200 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon HD 6370D | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3200 and EPYC 9654.
| 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. 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.
EPYC 9654 outperforms E2-3200 by 12632% based on our aggregated 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%
EPYC 9654 outperforms E2-3200 by 12711% 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%
EPYC 9654 outperforms E2-3200 by 514% 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%
EPYC 9654 outperforms E2-3200 by 3436% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 78.94 |
| Recency | 7 September 2011 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 360 Watt |
The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the E2-3200 in performance tests.
Be aware that E2-3200 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3200 and EPYC 9654, 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.
