EPYC 7302P vs i7-2669M
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 12.87 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Core i7 | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.56 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $825 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 22 | 30 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 624 Million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | Socket G2 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1333 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | 204.763 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 155 Watt |
i7-2669M has 342.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7302P, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Core i7-2669M is a notebook processor while EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-2669M and EPYC 7302P, 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.
