EPYC 7F72 vs Athlon 900
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 177 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.27 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.38 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Thunderbird (1999−2000) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 6 March 2000 (25 years ago) | 14 April 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $2,450 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Athlon 900 and EPYC 7F72 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.9 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 192 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 102 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 22 million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 900 and EPYC 7F72 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 |
| Socket | A | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 7F72. 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 7F72 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 7F72. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR4-3200 |
| 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 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 900 and EPYC 7F72.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 March 2000 | 14 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 24 |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 240 Watt |
Athlon 900 has 300% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7F72, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 20 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 2471.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between AMD Athlon 900 and AMD EPYC 7F72. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 900 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7F72 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.
