E-300 vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.13 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD E-Series |
| Power efficiency | 26.16 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Storm Peak (2023) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 19 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300 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 | 96 | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 192 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | Compute Die (CCD) Size 71 mm2, I/O Die (IOD) Size 388 mm2 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 78,840 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300 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 | 1 |
| Socket | sTR5 | FT1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2 | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 19 October 2023 | 22 August 2011 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 2 |
| Threads | 192 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 18 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX has an age advantage of 12 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
E-300, on the other hand, has 1844.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX is a server/workstation processor while E-300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and E-300, 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.
