EPYC 7543 vs i3-530

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i3-530
2010
2 cores / 4 threads, 73 Watt
0.94
EPYC 7543
2021
32 cores / 64 threads, 225 Watt
38.34
+3979%

EPYC 7543 outperforms Core i3-530 by a whopping 3979% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking250677
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.147.63
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.2216.13
Architecture codenameClarkdale (2010−2011)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$60$3,761

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7543 has 5350% better value for money than i3-530.

Detailed specifications

Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543 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)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads464
Base clock speed2.93 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed0.93 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus rate2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data28
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm7 nm+
Die size81 mm28x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature73 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543 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 configuration12
SocketFCLGA1156SP3
Power consumption (TDP)73 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data

Security technologies

Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543 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 i3-530 and EPYC 7543 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size16.38 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/s204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® ProcessorsN/A
Clear Video HD+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanes16128

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.

i3-530 0.94
EPYC 7543 38.34
+3979%

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.

i3-530 1501
EPYC 7543 60901
+3957%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.94 38.34
Recency 7 January 2010 15 March 2021
Physical cores 2 32
Threads 4 64
Chip lithography 32 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 73 Watt 225 Watt

i3-530 has 208.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7543, on the other hand, has a 3978.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 1500% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7543 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-530 in performance tests.

Note that Core i3-530 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7543 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-530 and EPYC 7543, 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 i3-530
Core i3-530
AMD EPYC 7543
EPYC 7543

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.


2.8 439 votes

Rate Core i3-530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 6 votes

Rate EPYC 7543 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i3-530 or EPYC 7543, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.