i7-2675QM vs EPYC 8434P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8434P outperforms Core i7-2675QM by a whopping 1603% 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 | 96 | 2008 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.43 | 0.20 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i7 |
| Power efficiency | 8.01 | 2.09 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | 4 September 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,700 | $378 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 8434P has 7115% better value for money than i7-2675QM.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM 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 | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 96 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 22 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | 216 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | 1160 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | SP6 | FCBGA1224 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel HD Graphics 3000 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.2 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8434P and Core i7-2675QM.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | 16 |
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 | 37.63 | 2.21 |
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 4 September 2011 |
| Physical cores | 48 | 4 |
| Threads | 96 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
EPYC 8434P has a 1602.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 1100% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
i7-2675QM, on the other hand, has 344.4% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 8434P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core i7-2675QM in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 8434P is a server/workstation processor while Core i7-2675QM 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.
