EPYC 7H12 vs Core 2 Duo T9300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo T9300
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
1.08
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
45.02
+4069%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Duo T9300 by a whopping 4069% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo T9300 and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking231737
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data21.91
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel Core 2 DuoAMD EPYC
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Zen 2 (2019−2020)
Release date10 January 2008 (16 years ago)18 September 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$316no data
Current price$66 (0.2x MSRP)$1970

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo T9300 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 cores2 (Dual-core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads2128
Base clock speed2.5 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus support800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache6 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cache256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size107 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes
VID voltage range1V-1.25Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo T9300 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 configurationno data2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketBGA479,PGA478TR4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo T9300 and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NIno data+
AVXno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo T9300 and EPYC 7H12 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo T9300 and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo T9300 and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Core 2 Duo T9300 1.08
EPYC 7H12 45.02
+4069%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Duo T9300 by 4069% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Core 2 Duo T9300 1670
EPYC 7H12 69633
+4070%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Duo T9300 by 4070% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.08 45.02
Recency 10 January 2008 18 September 2019
Physical cores 2 64
Threads 2 128
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 280 Watt

The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo T9300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core 2 Duo T9300 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo T9300 and EPYC 7H12, 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.


Intel Core 2 Duo T9300
Core 2 Duo T9300
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.


4.1 294 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T9300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 450 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo T9300 or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.