EPYC Embedded 3255 vs Ryzen 7 2700X
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 701 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.11 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | AMD EPYC Embedded |
| Power efficiency | 9.94 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen+ (2018−2019) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.35 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | 25 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255 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 | AM4 | AMD BGA SP4r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 32 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 19 April 2018 | 21 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 55 Watt |
Ryzen 7 2700X has an age advantage of 1 month, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
EPYC Embedded 3255, on the other hand, has 90.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 7 2700X is a desktop processor while EPYC Embedded 3255 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC Embedded 3255, 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.
