EPYC 4344P vs Xeon Phi 7230F
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 251 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 52.16 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 31.33 |
| Architecture codename | Knights Landing (2016) | Raphael (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 21 May 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 256 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 32 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 71 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 6,570 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P 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 | 3647 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 28 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 21 May 2024 |
| Physical cores | 64 | 8 |
| Threads | 256 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon Phi 7230F has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
EPYC 4344P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 253.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Phi 7230F and EPYC 4344P, 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.
