EPYC 7702P vs Solo T1200
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7702P outperforms Core Solo T1200 by a whopping 25393% 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 | 3689 | 138 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Core Solo | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.22 | 7.68 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | January 2006 (20 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,425 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7702P: 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 90 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 151 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7702P 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 479 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7702P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7702P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7702P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.14 | 35.69 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 64 |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 200 Watt |
Solo T1200 has 641% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7702P, on the other hand, has a 25393% higher aggregate performance score, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 829% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7702P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core Solo T1200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core Solo T1200 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7702P is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
