EPYC 7643 vs Athlon 3000G

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 3000G
2019
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
2.82
EPYC 7643
2021
48 cores / 96 threads, 225 Watt
47.88
+1598%

EPYC 7643 outperforms Athlon 3000G by a whopping 1598% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking168138
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.276.71
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD AthlonAMD EPYC
Power efficiency7.6320.14
Architecture codenameZen+ (2018−2019)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date7 November 2019 (5 years ago)12 January 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$49$4,995

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7643 has 27% better value for money than Athlon 3000G.

Detailed specifications

Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643 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 cores2 (Dual-core)48 (Octatetraconta-Core)
Threads496
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.6 GHz
Bus typePCIe 3.0no data
Multiplier3523
L1 cache192 KB3 MB
L2 cache1 MB24 MB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm+
Die size209.78 mm2?8x 81 mm2
Number of transistors4940 Million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketAM4SP3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
PowerNow+-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR4-3200
Maximum memory size64 GB?4 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon Vega 3N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes6128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon 3000G 2.82
EPYC 7643 47.88
+1598%

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.

Athlon 3000G 4476
EPYC 7643 76050
+1599%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Athlon 3000G 956
EPYC 7643 1292
+35.1%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Athlon 3000G 1958
EPYC 7643 12182
+522%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.82 47.88
Recency 7 November 2019 12 January 2021
Physical cores 2 48
Threads 4 96
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 225 Watt

Athlon 3000G has 542.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7643, on the other hand, has a 1597.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 2300% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7643 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 3000G in performance tests.

Note that Athlon 3000G is a desktop processor while EPYC 7643 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 3000G and EPYC 7643, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon 3000G
Athlon 3000G
AMD EPYC 7643
EPYC 7643

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 2112 votes

Rate Athlon 3000G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.2 232 votes

Rate EPYC 7643 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 3000G or EPYC 7643, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.