EPYC 9654 vs Pentium G6951

VS

Aggregate performance score

Pentium G6951
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 73 Watt
0.87
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
75.70
+8601%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Pentium G6951 by a whopping 8601% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25686
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.121.36
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.1319.90
Architecture codenameClarkdale (2010−2011)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date1 September 2010 (14 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$94$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9654 has 21% better value for money than Pentium G6951.

Detailed specifications

Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654 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 cores2 (Dual-core)96
Threads2192
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.7 GHz
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache3 MB (shared)384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size81 mm212x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature73 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654 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
SocketFCLGA1156SP5
Power consumption (TDP)73 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size16.38 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth17 GB/s460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HDno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes16128

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.

Pentium G6951 0.87
EPYC 9654 75.70
+8601%

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.

Pentium G6951 1383
EPYC 9654 120246
+8595%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.87 75.70
Recency 1 September 2010 10 November 2022
Physical cores 2 96
Threads 2 192
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 73 Watt 360 Watt

Pentium G6951 has 393.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 8601.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium G6951 in performance tests.

Note that Pentium G6951 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium G6951 and EPYC 9654, 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.


Intel Pentium G6951
Pentium G6951
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.


4 1 vote

Rate Pentium G6951 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 995 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Pentium G6951 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.