EPYC 7443 vs Solo T1200
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7443 outperforms Core Solo T1200 by a whopping 22169% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3304 | 105 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 15.94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Core Solo | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.56 | 16.85 |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | January 2006 (18 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,010 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443 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 | 2.85 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 28.5 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 90 mm2 | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 151 million | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443 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 | 479 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | 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 | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.16 | 35.63 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 24 |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 200 Watt |
Solo T1200 has 640.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7443, on the other hand, has a 22168.8% higher aggregate performance score, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7443 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Solo T1200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core Solo T1200 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7443 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core Solo T1200 and EPYC 7443, 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.
