Ultra 7 265 vs EPYC Embedded 3101
Primary details
Comparing EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC Embedded | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) | January 2025 |
Detailed specifications
EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | 21 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AMD BGA SP4r2 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 512 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 32 | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 20 |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
EPYC Embedded 3101 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265, on the other hand, has 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC Embedded 3101 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC Embedded 3101 and Core Ultra 7 265, 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.
