EPYC 7702 vs FX-4300
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7702 outperforms FX-4300 by a whopping 2249% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-4300 and EPYC 7702 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2006 | 52 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.35 | 4.11 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.87 | 20.82 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | $6,450 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7702 has 1074% better value for money than FX-4300.
Detailed specifications
FX-4300 and EPYC 7702 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.225 V - Max: 1.3875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-4300 and EPYC 7702 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4300 and EPYC 7702. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4300 and EPYC 7702 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4300 and EPYC 7702. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4300 and EPYC 7702.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.86 | 43.69 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 200 Watt |
FX-4300 has 110.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7702, on the other hand, has a 2248.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7702 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-4300 in performance tests.
Note that FX-4300 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7702 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4300 and EPYC 7702, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
