EPYC 9535 vs FirePro A300

VS

Primary details

Comparing FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Architecture codenameTrinity (2012−2013)Turin (2024)
Release date7 August 2012 (12 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$8,992

Detailed specifications

FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535 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)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads4128
Base clock speed3.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4.3 GHz
L1 cache192K80 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB (shared)1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size246 mm28x 70.6 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,303 million66,520 million
64 bit support++

Compatibility

Information on FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535 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
SocketFM2SP5
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt300 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535. 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 FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535. 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 cardFireProN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 August 2012 10 October 2024
Physical cores 4 64
Threads 4 128
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 300 Watt

FirePro A300 has 361.5% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9535, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that FirePro A300 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9535 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FirePro A300 and EPYC 9535, 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 FirePro A300
FirePro A300
AMD EPYC 9535
EPYC 9535

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.


5 1 vote

Rate FirePro A300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9535 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FirePro A300 or EPYC 9535, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.