EPYC 7763 vs Core 2 Quad Q7600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 24 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.25 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.91 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 31 August 2009 (15 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $7,890 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 2.45 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 24.5 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 4 MB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 32 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 2x 82 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763 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 | 775 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763. 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 Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 31 August 2009 | 12 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 280 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q7600 has 194.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7763, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q7600 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7763 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q7600 and EPYC 7763, 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.
