EPYC 7352 vs Solo ULV U1300

VS

Primary details

Comparing Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated193
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data11.44
Market segmentLaptopServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiencyno data15.41
Architecture codenameYonah (2005−2006)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release dateApril 2006 (18 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,350

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352 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 cores1 (Single-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads148
Base clock speedno data2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.07 GHz3.2 GHz
Multiplierno data23
L1 cache64 KB1.5 MB
L2 cache2 MB12 MB
L3 cache0 KB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size90 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors151 million4,800 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352 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 configuration12 (Multiprocessor)
Socket479TR4
Power consumption (TDP)5 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 24
Threads 1 48
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 5 Watt 155 Watt

Solo ULV U1300 has 3000% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7352, on the other hand, has 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Core Solo ULV U1300 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7352 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core Solo ULV U1300 and EPYC 7352, 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.


Intel Core Solo ULV U1300
Core Solo ULV U1300
AMD EPYC 7352
EPYC 7352

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.


5 1 vote

Rate Core Solo ULV U1300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 3 votes

Rate EPYC 7352 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core Solo ULV U1300 or EPYC 7352, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.