A10-5800K vs EPYC 9455P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9455P outperforms A10-5800K by a whopping 3828% 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 | 23 | 2302 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.73 | 0.35 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD A-Series (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 9.40 | 0.72 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) | 2 October 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,819 | $122 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9455P has 3251% better value for money than A10-5800K.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9455P and A10-5800K 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 96 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.15 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9455P and A10-5800K 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9455P and A10-5800K. 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 9455P and A10-5800K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9455P and A10-5800K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon HD 7660D (800 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9455P and A10-5800K.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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 | 66.77 | 1.70 |
| Recency | 10 October 2024 | 2 October 2012 |
| Physical cores | 48 | 4 |
| Threads | 96 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 100 Watt |
EPYC 9455P has a 3827.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
A10-5800K, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9455P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A10-5800K in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9455P is a server/workstation processor while A10-5800K is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
