Core 2 Duo T7200 vs EPYC 7551

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7551
2017, $3,400
32 cores / 64 threads, 180 Watt
14.77
+3417%
Core 2 Duo T7200
2006, $286
2 cores / 2 threads, 34 Watt
0.42

EPYC 7551 outperforms Core 2 Duo T7200 by a whopping 3417% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking5743254
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.980.01
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesAMD EPYCIntel Core 2 Duo
Power efficiency3.460.52
DesignerAMDIntel
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date29 June 2017 (8 years ago)28 July 2006 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,400$286

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7551 has 9700% better value for money than Core 2 Duo T7200.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads642
Base clock speed2 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz2 GHz
Bus rateno data667 MHz
Multiplier20no data
L1 cache96K (per core)64 KB
L2 cache512K (per core)4 MB
L3 cache64 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm65 nm
Die size192 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million291 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage rangeno data1.0375V-1.3V

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketTR4PPGA478, PBGA479
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt34 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelno data
Maximum memory size2 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth170.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes128no data

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.

EPYC 7551 14.77
+3417%
Core 2 Duo T7200 0.42

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.

EPYC 7551 25844
+3383%
Samples: 15
Core 2 Duo T7200 742
Samples: 752

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

EPYC 7551 888
+315%
Core 2 Duo T7200 214

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

EPYC 7551 5463
+1488%
Core 2 Duo T7200 344

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.77 0.42
Recency 29 June 2017 28 July 2006
Physical cores 32 2
Threads 64 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 34 Watt

EPYC 7551 has a 3417% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 364% more advanced lithography process.

Core 2 Duo T7200, on the other hand, has 429% lower power consumption.

The AMD EPYC 7551 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7551 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Duo T7200 is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.9 13 votes

Rate EPYC 7551 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 129 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T7200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors EPYC 7551 and Core 2 Duo T7200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.