EPYC 75F3 vs Athlon X2 QL-67
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 82 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.08 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | 2x AMD Athlon | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.54 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Lion (2008−2009) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,860 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Athlon X2 QL-67 and EPYC 75F3 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.95 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4000 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 29.5 |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X2 QL-67 and EPYC 75F3 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 | S1g2 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 QL-67 and EPYC 75F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X2 QL-67 and EPYC 75F3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X2 QL-67 and EPYC 75F3. 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 X2 QL-67 and EPYC 75F3.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 32 |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
Athlon X2 QL-67 has 700% lower power consumption.
EPYC 75F3, 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 AMD Athlon X2 QL-67 and AMD EPYC 75F3. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon X2 QL-67 is a notebook processor while EPYC 75F3 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.
