Ryzen 7 8700G vs EPYC 9254

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9254
2022
24 cores / 48 threads, 200 Watt
42.71
+113%
Ryzen 7 8700G
2024
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
20.04

EPYC 9254 outperforms Ryzen 7 8700G by a whopping 113% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking55277
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.7544.93
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency20.2129.18
Architecture codenameGenoa (2022−2023)Phoenix (2023−2024)
Release date10 November 2022 (2 years ago)8 January 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,299$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 7 8700G has 185% better value for money than EPYC 9254.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads4816
Base clock speed2.9 GHz4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.15 GHz5.1 GHz
Multiplier29no data
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache128 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography5 nm, 6 nm4 nm
Die size4x 72 mm2178 mm2
Number of transistors26,280 million25,000 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G 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 configuration21
SocketSP5AM5
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G. 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 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-4800DDR5
Maximum memory size6 TiBno data
Maximum memory bandwidth460.8 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G.

PCIe version5.04.0
PCI Express lanes12820

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 9254 42.71
+113%
Ryzen 7 8700G 20.04

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.

EPYC 9254 67847
+113%
Ryzen 7 8700G 31831

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

EPYC 9254 2140
Ryzen 7 8700G 2681
+25.3%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

EPYC 9254 17738
+27.7%
Ryzen 7 8700G 13889

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 42.71 20.04
Recency 10 November 2022 8 January 2024
Physical cores 24 8
Threads 48 16
Chip lithography 5 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 65 Watt

EPYC 9254 has a 113.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

Ryzen 7 8700G, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 207.7% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9254 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 7 8700G in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 9254 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 7 8700G is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9254 and Ryzen 7 8700G, 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 9254
EPYC 9254
AMD Ryzen 7 8700G
Ryzen 7 8700G

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.


3 5 votes

Rate EPYC 9254 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 237 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 8700G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9254 or Ryzen 7 8700G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.