EPYC 9375F vs Athlon XP 1700+

VS

Primary details

Comparing Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3358not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.16no data
Architecture codenameThoroughbred (2001−2002)Turin (2024)
Release dateOctober 2001 (23 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$5,306

Detailed specifications

Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F 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 cores1 (Single-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads164
Base clock speedno data3.85 GHz
Boost clock speed1.47 GHz4.8 GHz
L1 cache128 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography180 nm4 nm
Die size150 mm28x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors37 million66,520 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F 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 configuration12
SocketASP5
Power consumption (TDP)64 Watt320 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 32
Threads 1 64
Chip lithography 180 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 64 Watt 320 Watt

Athlon XP 1700+ has 400% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9375F, on the other hand, has 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 4400% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Athlon XP 1700+ is a desktop processor while EPYC 9375F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon XP 1700+ and EPYC 9375F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon XP 1700+
Athlon XP 1700+
AMD EPYC 9375F
EPYC 9375F

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 23 votes

Rate Athlon XP 1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9375F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon XP 1700+ or EPYC 9375F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.