EPYC 7302 vs Athlon II X4 638
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7302 outperforms Athlon II X4 638 by a whopping 1363% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2394 | 331 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.45 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.84 | 5.14 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 6 February 2012 (13 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $978 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 638 and EPYC 7302 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 30 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 638 and EPYC 7302 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 | FM1 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 638 and EPYC 7302. 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 II X4 638 and EPYC 7302 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 638 and EPYC 7302. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | 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 | - | + |
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.36 | 19.90 |
| Recency | 6 February 2012 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 155 Watt |
Athlon II X4 638 has 138.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7302, on the other hand, has a 1363.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7302 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon II X4 638 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon II X4 638 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7302 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.
