Athlon 3000G vs EPYC 7451
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7451 outperforms Athlon 3000G by a whopping 498% 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 | 514 | 1929 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.47 | 5.27 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | 3.57 | 3.06 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 21 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,400 | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon 3000G has 259% better value for money than EPYC 7451.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7451 and Athlon 3000G 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 48 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Multiplier | 23 | 35 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 209.78 mm2? |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7451 and Athlon 3000G 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | TR4 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7451 and Athlon 3000G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7451 and Athlon 3000G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7451 and Athlon 3000G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 64 GB? |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7451 and Athlon 3000G.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 6 |
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 | 15.08 | 2.52 |
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 21 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 2 |
| Threads | 48 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 35 Watt |
EPYC 7451 has a 498.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 1100% more physical cores and 1100% more threads.
Athlon 3000G, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 414.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 7451 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon 3000G in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7451 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 3000G is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
