Performance per price, higher is better.
AMD EPYC 7H12 vs Athlon X4 840
Combined performance score
EPYC 7H12 outperforms Athlon X4 840 by 1999% in our combined benchmark results.
General info
Comparing Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in performance ranking | 1733 | 39 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Value for money | 7.38 | 5.01 |
Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
Series | 4x Athlon | AMD EPYC |
Architecture codename | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
Release date | August 2014 (9 years old) | 18 September 2019 (4 years old) |
Current price | $45 | $6796 |
Athlon X4 840 has 47% better value for money than EPYC 7H12.
Technical specs
Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
Threads | 4 | 128 |
Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
L1 cache | 256K | 96K (per core) |
L2 cache | 4 MB | 512K (per core) |
L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
Die size | 245 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
Number of transistors | 2,411 million | 4,800 million |
64 bit support | + | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Unlocked multiplier | Yes | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12 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 | Socket FM2+ | TR4 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
AES-NI | + | + |
FMA | + | no data |
AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.
AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12. 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 | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12.
PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
PCI Express lanes | 16 | no data |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
EPYC 7H12 outperforms Athlon X4 840 by 1999% in our combined benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 7H12 outperforms Athlon X4 840 by 1998% in Passmark.
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 2.16 | 45.34 |
Recency | on August 2014 | 18 September 2019 |
Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
Threads | 4 | 128 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 280 Watt |
The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X4 840 in performance tests.
Be aware that Athlon X4 840 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 840 and EPYC 7H12, 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.