300 vs EPYC 7F72
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F72 outperforms 300 by a whopping 635% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7F72 and 300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 101 | 1227 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.30 | 15.86 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2019−2020) | no data |
| Release date | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 1 January 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,450 | no data |
| Current price | $3606 (1.5x MSRP) | $183 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
300 has 91% better value for money than EPYC 7F72.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7F72 and 300 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 | 3.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 192 MB (shared) | 6 MB Intel® Smart Cache |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7F72 and 300 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 240 Watt | no data |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F72 and 300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Launched |
Security technologies
EPYC 7F72 and 300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F72 and 300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7F72 and 300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 8 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 710 |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.45 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 16 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of EPYC 7F72 and 300 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by EPYC 7F72 and 300 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by EPYC 7F72 and 300 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F72 and 300.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
EPYC 7F72 outperforms 300 by 635% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 7F72 outperforms 300 by 635% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.01 | 4.63 |
| Recency | 14 April 2020 | 1 January 2024 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 2 |
| Threads | 48 | 4 |
The EPYC 7F72 is our recommended choice as it beats the 300 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7F72 is a server/workstation processor while 300 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7F72 and 300, 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.
