EPYC 9634 vs FX-9830P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9634 outperforms FX-9830P by a whopping 3163% 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 | 2203 | 27 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.28 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 2.28 | 8.97 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (9 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $10,304 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of FX-9830P and EPYC 9634: 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) | 84 |
| Threads | 4 | 168 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.25 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 22.5 |
| L1 cache | 320 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per module) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-9830P and EPYC 9634 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 | 2 |
| Socket | FP4 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 290 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 9634. 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 9634 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 9634. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 900 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9830P and EPYC 9634.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 1.89 | 61.67 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 84 |
| Threads | 4 | 168 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 290 Watt |
FX-9830P has 729% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9634, on the other hand, has a 3163% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 2000% more physical cores and 4100% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9634 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD FX-9830P in performance tests.
Be aware that FX-9830P is a notebook processor while EPYC 9634 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
