Athlon II X3 415e vs EPYC 9684X
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9684X outperforms Athlon II X3 415e by a whopping 8168% 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 | 17 | 2751 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 0.97 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 7.33 | 0.79 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Genoa-X (2023) | Rana (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (2 years ago) | 11 May 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,756 | $75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon II X3 415e has 4750% better value for money than EPYC 9684X.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9684X and Athlon II X3 415e 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 | 96 | 3 (Tri-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 3 |
| Base clock speed | 2.55 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1152 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 12x 72 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 135,240 million | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9684X and Athlon II X3 415e 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 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9684X and Athlon II X3 415e. 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 9684X and Athlon II X3 415e are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9684X and Athlon II X3 415e. 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 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9684X and Athlon II X3 415e.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| 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 | 69.45 | 0.84 |
| Recency | 13 June 2023 | 11 May 2010 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 3 |
| Threads | 192 | 3 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 45 Watt |
EPYC 9684X has a 8167.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon II X3 415e, on the other hand, has 788.9% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9684X is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon II X3 415e in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9684X is a server/workstation processor while Athlon II X3 415e 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.
