EPYC 7H12 vs A4-3300M

VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-3300M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.77
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
45.50
+5809%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms A4-3300M by a whopping 5809% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-3300M and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking264946
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.0114.82
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)18 September 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A4-3300M and EPYC 7H12 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)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads2128
Base clock speed1.9 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz3.3 GHz
Multiplierno data26
L1 cache128 KB (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size228 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors1,178 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on A4-3300M and EPYC 7H12 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 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFS1TR4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3300M and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480Gno data
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3300M and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3300M and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6480Gno data

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.

A4-3300M 0.77
EPYC 7H12 45.50
+5809%

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.

A4-3300M 1186
EPYC 7H12 69633
+5771%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.77 45.50
Recency 14 June 2011 18 September 2019
Physical cores 2 64
Threads 2 128
Chip lithography 32 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 280 Watt

A4-3300M has 700% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7H12, on the other hand, has a 5809.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3300M in performance tests.

Be aware that A4-3300M is a notebook processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3300M and EPYC 7H12, 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 A4-3300M
A4-3300M
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.


3.1 110 votes

Rate A4-3300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 450 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-3300M or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.