EPYC 7642 vs Opteron 248
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7642 outperforms Opteron 248 by a whopping 18922% 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 | 3562 | 141 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.05 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.09 | 6.42 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | November 2003 (22 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $12 | $4,775 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Opteron 248 and EPYC 7642: 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 23 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 248 and EPYC 7642 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 | 2 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | 940 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 225 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 248 and EPYC 7642. 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 Opteron 248 and EPYC 7642 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 248 and EPYC 7642. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | 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 | - | + |
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 | 0.18 | 34.24 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 48 |
| Threads | 1 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 225 Watt |
Opteron 248 has 153% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7642, on the other hand, has a 18922% higher aggregate performance score, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 1757% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7642 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Opteron 248 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
