EPYC 7702 vs Athlon 900
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 46 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.07 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 20.85 |
| Architecture codename | Thunderbird (1999−2000) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 6 March 2000 (24 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $6,450 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.9 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 4 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 32 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 102 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 22 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | A | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 March 2000 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 64 |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 200 Watt |
Athlon 900 has 233.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7702, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 19 years, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 2471.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 900 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7702 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 900 and EPYC 7702, 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.
