EPYC 7F72 vs Athlon II X4 600e
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F72 outperforms Athlon II X4 600e by a whopping 2830% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2399 | 120 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 10.43 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 2.38 | 13.06 |
| Architecture codename | Propus (2009−2011) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 20 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $130 | $2,450 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7F72 has 9382% better value for money than Athlon II X4 600e.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 192 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72 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 | 2 |
| Socket | AM3 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.13 | 33.11 |
| Recency | 20 October 2009 | 14 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 24 |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 240 Watt |
Athlon II X4 600e has 433.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7F72, on the other hand, has a 2830.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7F72 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 600e in performance tests.
Note that Athlon II X4 600e is a desktop processor while EPYC 7F72 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 600e and EPYC 7F72, 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.
