EPYC 7573X vs C-30
Primary details
Comparing C-30 and EPYC 7573X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 47 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD C-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.78 |
| Architecture codename | Ontario (2011−2012) | Milan-X (2022) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
C-30 and EPYC 7573X 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 768 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on C-30 and EPYC 7573X 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by C-30 and EPYC 7573X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 40 nm, 1.24-1.35V | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by C-30 and EPYC 7573X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by C-30 and EPYC 7573X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | DDR4-3200 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6250 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by C-30 and EPYC 7573X.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 22 March 2022 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 32 |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 280 Watt |
C-30 has 3011.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7573X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between C-30 and EPYC 7573X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that C-30 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7573X is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between C-30 and EPYC 7573X, 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.
