A10-9620P vs EPYC 8534P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8534P outperforms A10-9620P by a whopping 2752% 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 | 83 | 2387 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.93 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Bristol Ridge |
| Power efficiency | 21.87 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | 1 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,950 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8534P and A10-9620P 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 128 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | 3100 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8534P and A10-9620P 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 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 2 MB |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8534P and A10-9620P. 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 8534P and A10-9620P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8534P and A10-9620P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3, DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8534P and A10-9620P.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | 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 | 40.79 | 1.43 |
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 1 January 2017 |
| Physical cores | 64 | 4 |
| Threads | 128 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 2 Watt |
EPYC 8534P has a 2752.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
A10-9620P, on the other hand, has 9900% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 8534P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A10-9620P in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 8534P is a server/workstation processor while A10-9620P 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.
