EPYC Embedded 3201 vs Xeon Phi 7295
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Market segment | Server | Server |
Series | Intel Xeon Phi | AMD EPYC Embedded |
Architecture codename | Knights Mill (2017) | Zen (2017−2020) |
Release date | 18 December 2017 (6 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201 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 | 72 (Doheptaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
Threads | 288 | 8 |
Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
Multiplier | 15 | 15 |
L1 cache | 4.5 MB | 768 KB |
L2 cache | 36 MB | 4 MB |
L3 cache | 0 KB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Die size | no data | 213 mm2 |
Maximum core temperature | 77 °C | no data |
Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 4800 Million |
64 bit support | + | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
VID voltage range | 0.550-1.2V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201 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 (Uniprocessor) |
Socket | SVLCLGA3647 | AMD BGA SP4r2 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
AES-NI | + | + |
AVX | + | + |
Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
Idle States | + | no data |
Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
TXT | - | no data |
EDB | + | no data |
SGX | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201 are enumerated here.
AMD-V | - | + |
VT-d | + | no data |
VT-x | + | no data |
EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR4-2133 |
Maximum memory size | 384 GB | 512 GB |
Max memory channels | 6 | 2 |
Maximum memory bandwidth | 115.212 GB/s | 34.13 GB/s |
ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
Max video memory | 1 GB | no data |
Graphics max frequency | 0 MHz | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201.
PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
PCI Express lanes | 36 | 32 |
Pros & cons summary
Recency | 18 December 2017 | 21 February 2018 |
Physical cores | 72 | 8 |
Threads | 288 | 8 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 30 Watt |
Xeon Phi 7295 has 800% more physical cores and 3500% more threads.
EPYC Embedded 3201, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 966.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Phi 7295 and EPYC Embedded 3201, 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.