EPYC 7251 vs Atom P5362
Aggregate performance score
Atom P5362 outperforms EPYC 7251 by a moderate 16% 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 | 1013 | 1124 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.32 | 1.20 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 5.00 | 2.99 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | no data |
| Architecture codename | Snow Ridge (2020−2022) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 6 June 2022 (4 years ago) | 29 June 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $708 | $574 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Atom P5362 has 343% better value for money than EPYC 7251.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Atom P5362 and EPYC 7251: 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4.5 MB (per module) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 27 MB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom P5362 and EPYC 7251 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 | FCBGA2106 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 83 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom P5362 and EPYC 7251. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| QuickAssist | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
Security technologies
Atom P5362 and EPYC 7251 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| SGX | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom P5362 and EPYC 7251 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom P5362 and EPYC 7251. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 153.652 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom P5362 and EPYC 7251.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 32 | 128 |
| USB revision | 2.0, 3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 16 | no data |
| Integrated IDE | - | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | + | no data |
| UART | 3 | no 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.
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 | 10.09 | 8.72 |
| Recency | 6 June 2022 | 29 June 2017 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 8 |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 83 Watt | 120 Watt |
Atom P5362 has a 16% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 200% more physical cores and 50% more threads, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 45% lower power consumption.
The Intel Atom P5362 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 7251 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
