Opteron 6212 vs EPYC 9965
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9965 outperforms Opteron 6212 by a whopping 3949% 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 | 1 | 1905 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.92 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 19.29 | 2.07 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Interlagos (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 14 November 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,813 | $266 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9965 and Opteron 6212 have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9965 and Opteron 6212 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 | 192 | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 384 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.25 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 768 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | 8 MB (per die) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 315 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 69 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9965 and Opteron 6212 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 | 4 |
| Socket | SP5 | G34 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 500 Watt | 115 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9965 and Opteron 6212. 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 9965 and Opteron 6212 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9965 and Opteron 6212. 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 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9965 and Opteron 6212.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no 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.
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 | 100.00 | 2.47 |
| Recency | 10 October 2024 | 14 November 2011 |
| Physical cores | 192 | 8 |
| Threads | 384 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 500 Watt | 115 Watt |
EPYC 9965 has a 3948.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.
Opteron 6212, on the other hand, has 334.8% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9965 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Opteron 6212 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
