EPYC 73F3 vs Athlon 64 TF-20
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 153 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.26 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Athlon 64 | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.45 |
| Architecture codename | Sherman (2009) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,521 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 0.1 MB | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3 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 | 2 |
| Socket | S1g1 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 12 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 240 Watt |
Athlon 64 TF-20 has 860% lower power consumption.
EPYC 73F3, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon 64 TF-20 is a notebook processor while EPYC 73F3 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 TF-20 and EPYC 73F3, 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.
