EPYC 7H12 vs Atom C3808

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom C3808
2017
12 cores / 12 threads, 25 Watt
3.23
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
39.62
+1127%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Atom C3808 by a whopping 1127% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking172679
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.43no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel AtomAMD EPYC
Power efficiency5.465.98
DesignerIntelAMD
Manufacturerno dataTSMC
Architecture codenameGoldmont (2016−2017)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date15 August 2017 (8 years ago)18 September 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$369no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Atom C3808 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads12128
Base clock speed2 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz3.3 GHz
Multiplier2226
L1 cache672 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache12 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache12 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Atom C3808 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1310TR4
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3808 and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
QuickAssist+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Atom C3808 and EPYC 7H12 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Boot+no data
SGX-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3808 and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3808 and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4: 2133DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size256 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3808 and EPYC 7H12.

PCIe version3no data
PCI Express lanes16no data
USB revision3no data
Total number of SATA ports16no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN4x10/2.5/1 GBEno data

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Atom C3808 3.23
EPYC 7H12 39.62
+1127%

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.

Atom C3808 5671
Samples: 2
EPYC 7H12 69633
+1128%
Samples: 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.23 39.62
Recency 15 August 2017 18 September 2019
Physical cores 12 64
Threads 12 128
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 280 Watt

Atom C3808 has 1020% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7H12, on the other hand, has a 1126.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 433.3% more physical cores and 966.7% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The AMD EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Atom C3808 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

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


Intel Atom C3808
Atom C3808
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


4 1 vote

Rate Atom C3808 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 452 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Atom C3808 and EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.