EPYC 9275F vs Athlon 3000G
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 3000G and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1672 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.27 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Athlon | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.63 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen+ (2018−2019) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 21 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $49 | $3,439 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 3000G 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2? | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 3000G 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 (Uniprocessor) | 2 |
| Socket | AM4 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 9275F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB? | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 9275F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 21 November 2019 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 320 Watt |
Athlon 3000G has 814.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, 1100% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 3000G and EPYC 9275F. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 3000G is a desktop processor while EPYC 9275F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 3000G 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.
