EPYC 9475F vs C-50
Primary details
Comparing C-50 and EPYC 9475F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD C-Series | no data |
| Architecture codename | Ontario (2011−2012) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $7,592 |
Detailed specifications
C-50 and EPYC 9475F 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.65 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on C-50 and EPYC 9475F 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 |
| Socket | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by C-50 and EPYC 9475F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by C-50 and EPYC 9475F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by C-50 and EPYC 9475F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6250 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by C-50 and EPYC 9475F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 48 |
| Threads | 2 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 400 Watt |
C-50 has 4344.4% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9475F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 13 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between C-50 and EPYC 9475F. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that C-50 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9475F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between C-50 and EPYC 9475F, 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.
