EPYC 9275F vs PRO A10-8770
Primary details
Comparing PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1820 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 3.28 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Carrizo (2015−2018) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | October 2016 (8 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,439 |
Detailed specifications
PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F 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 | AM4 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR5 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | N/A |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | n/a | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 24 |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 320 Watt |
PRO A10-8770 has 392.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that PRO A10-8770 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9275F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between PRO A10-8770 and EPYC 9275F, 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.
