EPYC 73F3 vs E-350
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 73F3 outperforms E-350 by a whopping 10850% 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 | 3376 | 219 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.17 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD E-Series | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.56 | 4.62 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,521 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
E-350 and EPYC 73F3 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 | 2 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E-350 and EPYC 73F3 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 | 2 |
| Socket | FT1 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-350 and EPYC 73F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-350 and EPYC 73F3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-350 and EPYC 73F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E-350 and EPYC 73F3.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 26.28 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 240 Watt |
E-350 has 1233.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 73F3, on the other hand, has a 10850% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 73F3 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD E-350 in performance tests.
Be aware that E-350 is a notebook processor while EPYC 73F3 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.
