EPYC 9565 vs FX-4320

VS

Primary details

Comparing FX-4320 and EPYC 9565 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1921not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.98no data
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Turin (2024)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)10 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$10,486

Detailed specifications

FX-4320 and EPYC 9565 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)72 (Doheptaconta-Core)
Threads4144
Base clock speed4 GHz3.15 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz4.3 GHz
L1 cache192 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache4096 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache4096 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size315 mm212x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million99,780 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on FX-4320 and EPYC 9565 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 configuration12
SocketAM3+SP5
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and EPYC 9565. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4320 and EPYC 9565 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and EPYC 9565. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4320 and EPYC 9565.

PCIe versionNot Listed5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 October 2012 10 October 2024
Physical cores 4 72
Threads 4 144
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 400 Watt

FX-4320 has 321.1% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9565, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 1700% more physical cores and 3500% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between FX-4320 and EPYC 9565. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that FX-4320 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9565 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and EPYC 9565, 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 FX-4320
FX-4320
AMD EPYC 9565
EPYC 9565

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.


3.5 135 votes

Rate FX-4320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9565 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4320 or EPYC 9565, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.