EPYC 7502P vs FX-9830P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7502P outperforms FX-9830P by a whopping 1422% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-9830P and EPYC 7502P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1788 | 110 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 15.71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,300 |
| Current price | $749 | $1681 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-9830P and EPYC 7502P 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on FX-9830P and EPYC 7502P 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25-45 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 7502P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Dual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 7502P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 7502P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) | 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. 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 7502P outperforms FX-9830P by 1422% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 7502P outperforms FX-9830P by 1423% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
EPYC 7502P outperforms FX-9830P by 68% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
EPYC 7502P outperforms FX-9830P by 467% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.14 | 32.57 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 32 |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 180 Watt |
The EPYC 7502P is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9830P in performance tests.
Be aware that FX-9830P is a notebook processor while EPYC 7502P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9830P and EPYC 7502P, 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.
