EPYC 4244P vs i3-N305
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 4244P outperforms Core i3-N305 by a whopping 176% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1074 | 368 |
| Place by popularity | 78 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 56.10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Power efficiency | 39.60 | 25.19 |
| Architecture codename | Alder Lake-N (2023) | Raphael (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 3 January 2023 (1 year ago) | 21 May 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $309 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 0.1 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (per module) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | Intel 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 6,570 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P 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 | FCBGA1264 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 1 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics | AMD Radeon Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.25 GHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 32 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | no data |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096 x 2160@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 4096 x 2160@60Hz | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 9 | 28 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.2 | no 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.
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
| Performance score | 6.28 | 17.31 |
| Integrated graphics card | 5.58 | 1.98 |
| Recency | 3 January 2023 | 21 May 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 6 |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
i3-N305 has 181.8% faster integrated GPU, 33.3% more physical cores, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 4244P, on the other hand, has a 175.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 50% more threads.
The EPYC 4244P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-N305 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i3-N305 is a notebook processor while EPYC 4244P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-N305 and EPYC 4244P, 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.
