EPYC Embedded 3101 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 488 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.68 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | AMD EPYC Embedded |
| Power efficiency | 7.64 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 13 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 35 | 21 |
| L1 cache | 1.125 MB | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 9600 Million | 4800 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | SP3r2 | AMD BGA SP4r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 60 | 32 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 13 July 2017 | 21 February 2018 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 4 |
| Threads | 24 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads.
EPYC Embedded 3101, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 414.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is a desktop processor while EPYC Embedded 3101 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and EPYC Embedded 3101, 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.
