EPYC 8324PN vs Phenom II X4 N930
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8324PN outperforms Phenom II X4 N930 by a whopping 439% 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 | 2748 | 1396 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.54 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | 4x AMD Phenom II | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | 1.55 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (15 years ago) | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,125 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 N930 and EPYC 8324PN 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 | no data | 2.05 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 4x 73 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 35,500 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 N930 and EPYC 8324PN 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 |
| Socket | S1 | SP6 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and EPYC 8324PN. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3dNow!, SSE (2,3,4A), AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Vurtualization, HyperTransport 3.0 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and EPYC 8324PN are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and EPYC 8324PN. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and EPYC 8324PN.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 96 |
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 | 0.88 | 4.74 |
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 18 September 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 32 |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 130 Watt |
Phenom II X4 N930 has 271.4% lower power consumption.
EPYC 8324PN, on the other hand, has a 438.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 8324PN is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Phenom II X4 N930 in performance tests.
Be aware that Phenom II X4 N930 is a notebook processor while EPYC 8324PN 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.
