EPYC 4584PX vs EPYC Embedded 3101
Primary details
Comparing EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 81 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 54.13 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC Embedded | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 29.64 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Raphael (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 21 May 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | 21 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 2x 71 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 47 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 17,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX 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 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX. 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 | AMD Radeon Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 32 | 28 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 21 May 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
EPYC Embedded 3101 has 242.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 4584PX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC Embedded 3101 and EPYC 4584PX, 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.
