EPYC 9965 vs EPYC 8434P

VS

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking58not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.72no data
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency19.81no data
Architecture codenameSiena (2023−2024)Turin (2024)
Release date18 September 2023 (1 year ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,700$14,813

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965 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 cores48 (Octatetraconta-Core)192
Threads96384
Base clock speed2.5 GHz2.25 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache128 MB (shared)384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography5 nm3 nm
Die size4x 73 mm2no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)75 °Cno data
Number of transistors35,500 millionno data
64 bit support++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965 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 configuration12
SocketSP6SP5
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt500 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes96128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 September 2023 10 October 2024
Physical cores 48 192
Threads 96 384
Chip lithography 5 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 500 Watt

EPYC 8434P has 150% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9965, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 8434P and EPYC 9965, 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.


AMD EPYC 8434P
EPYC 8434P
AMD EPYC 9965
EPYC 9965

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 8434P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 22 votes

Rate EPYC 9965 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 8434P or EPYC 9965, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.