Pentium M 738 vs EPYC 8434P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8434P outperforms Pentium M 738 by a whopping 31325% 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 | 98 | 3622 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.43 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Pentium M |
| Power efficiency | 20.22 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,700 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8434P and Pentium M 738 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 | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 96 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8434P and Pentium M 738 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 | SP6 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 2 MB |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8434P and Pentium M 738. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8434P and Pentium M 738 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8434P and Pentium M 738. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8434P and Pentium M 738.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 37.71 | 0.12 |
| Physical cores | 48 | 1 |
| Threads | 96 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 2 Watt |
EPYC 8434P has a 31325% higher aggregate performance score, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 1700% more advanced lithography process.
Pentium M 738, on the other hand, has 9900% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 8434P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Pentium M 738 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 8434P is a server/workstation processor while Pentium M 738 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.
