GX-210JA vs EPYC 4565P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 4565P outperforms GX-210JA by a whopping 25986% 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 | 116 | 3617 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 72.88 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD |
| Power efficiency | 9.07 | 0.99 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Grado (2025) | Temash (2013) |
| Release date | 13 May 2025 (less than a year ago) | 23 May 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $589 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 4565P and GX-210JA 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 32 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 4.3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 5.7 GHz | 1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 2x 70.6 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 16,630 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 4565P and GX-210JA 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM5 | FT3 BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 4565P and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 4565P and GX-210JA are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 4565P and GX-210JA. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon Graphics | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 4565P and GX-210JA.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 24 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 36.52 | 0.14 |
| Recency | 13 May 2025 | 23 May 2013 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 32 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 6 Watt |
EPYC 4565P has a 25985.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
GX-210JA, on the other hand, has 2733.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 4565P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD GX-210JA in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 4565P is a server/workstation processor while GX-210JA is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
