EPYC 7451 vs Atom CE4130
Primary details
Comparing Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 404 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.73 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 8.56 |
| Architecture codename | Sodaville (2009) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 24 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,400 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 23 |
| L1 cache | 56 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 96 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 47 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451 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 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | Intel BGA 951 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2, DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 170.671 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 Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 24 September 2009 | 29 June 2017 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 24 |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 180 Watt |
Atom CE4130 has 2471.4% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7451, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Atom CE4130 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7451 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom CE4130 and EPYC 7451, 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.
