EPYC 4244P vs EPYC Embedded 3401
Primary details
Comparing EPYC Embedded 3401 and EPYC 4244P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 360 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 53.33 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC Embedded | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 25.24 |
| 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 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC Embedded 3401 and EPYC 4244P 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.85 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | 18.5 | no data |
| L1 cache | 1536 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 71 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 9600 Million | 6,570 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC Embedded 3401 and EPYC 4244P 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 | no data | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC Embedded 3401 and EPYC 4244P. 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 3401 and EPYC 4244P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC Embedded 3401 and EPYC 4244P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 1 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 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 3401 and EPYC 4244P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 28 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 21 May 2024 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 6 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 65 Watt |
EPYC Embedded 3401 has 166.7% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
EPYC 4244P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 30.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC Embedded 3401 and EPYC 4244P. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC Embedded 3401 and EPYC 4244P, 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.
