FX-4300 vs EPYC 9754

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9754
2023
128 cores / 256 threads, 360 Watt
64.45
+3274%
FX-4300
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.91

EPYC 9754 outperforms FX-4300 by a whopping 3274% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9754 and FX-4300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking121971
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.030.27
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency16.631.87
Architecture codenameBergamo (2023)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date13 June 2023 (1 year ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$11,900$122

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9754 has 281% better value for money than FX-4300.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9754 and FX-4300 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 cores1284 (Quad-Core)
Threads2564
Base clock speed2.25 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz4 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)4096 KB
L3 cache256 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography5 nm32 nm
Die size8x 73 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data71 °C
Number of transistors71,000 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-
Unlocked multiplier-+
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.225 V - Max: 1.3875 V

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9754 and FX-4300 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
SocketSP5AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)360 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and FX-4300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9754 and FX-4300 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9754 and FX-4300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9754 and FX-4300.

PCIe version5.0n/a
PCI Express lanes128no data

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 9754 64.45
+3274%
FX-4300 1.91

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 9754 100460
+3265%
FX-4300 2985

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 64.45 1.91
Recency 13 June 2023 23 October 2012
Physical cores 128 4
Threads 256 4
Chip lithography 5 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 360 Watt 95 Watt

EPYC 9754 has a 3274.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

FX-4300, on the other hand, has 278.9% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9754 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-4300 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 9754 is a server/workstation processor while FX-4300 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and FX-4300, 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 9754
EPYC 9754
AMD FX-4300
FX-4300

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.


3.7 36 votes

Rate EPYC 9754 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 1723 votes

Rate FX-4300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9754 or FX-4300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.