5 210H vs EPYC 9354
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9354 outperforms Core 5 210H by a whopping 300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 53 | 728 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.55 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.84 | 23.08 |
| Architecture codename | Genoa (2022−2023) | Raptor Lake-H (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) | 18 December 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,420 | $342 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.25 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | 32.5 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm, 6 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 8x 72 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 52,560 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | Intel BGA 1744 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800 | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 6 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 8 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 43.60 | 10.90 |
| Recency | 10 November 2022 | 18 December 2024 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 8 |
| Threads | 64 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 45 Watt |
EPYC 9354 has a 300% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
5 210H, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 522.2% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9354 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 5 210H in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9354 is a server/workstation processor while Core 5 210H is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9354 and Core 5 210H, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
