EPYC 4244P vs FX-9830P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 4244P outperforms FX-9830P by a whopping 722% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1870 | 364 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 52.81 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.68 | 25.13 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Raphael (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 21 May 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 320 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per module) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 6,570 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P 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 | FP4 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P. 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 FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) | AMD Radeon Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 28 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.10 | 17.26 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.95 | 1.98 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 21 May 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
FX-9830P has 85.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 4244P, on the other hand, has a 721.9% higher aggregate performance score, 1.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 7 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 4244P is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9830P in performance tests.
Be aware that FX-9830P is a notebook processor while EPYC 4244P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9830P and EPYC 4244P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
