A6-9400 vs EPYC 7402
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7402 outperforms A6-9400 by a whopping 1591% 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 | 232 | 2325 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.88 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 15.54 | 2.55 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 7 August 2019 (6 years ago) | 16 March 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,783 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7402 and A6-9400 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 48 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.35 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | 28 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 160K |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB (per die) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 4x 74 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 15,200 million | 3,100 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7402 and A6-9400 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7402 and A6-9400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7402 and A6-9400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7402 and A6-9400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4-2400 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Radeon R5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7402 and A6-9400.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 8 |
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 | 26.04 | 1.54 |
| Recency | 7 August 2019 | 16 March 2019 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 2 |
| Threads | 48 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 65 Watt |
EPYC 7402 has a 1590.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
A6-9400, on the other hand, has 176.9% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 7402 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A6-9400 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7402 is a server/workstation processor while A6-9400 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
