EPYC 7302P vs Solo ULV U1400

VS

Primary details

Comparing Core Solo ULV U1400 and EPYC 7302P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated266
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data13.67
Market segmentLaptopServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiencyno data12.54
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$825

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core Solo ULV U1400 and EPYC 7302P 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads132
Base clock speedno data3 GHz
Boost clock speed1.2 GHz3.3 GHz
Multiplierno data30
L1 cache64 KB1 MB
L2 cache2 MB8 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 U1400 and EPYC 7302P 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
Socket479TR4
Power consumption (TDP)5 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Solo ULV U1400 and EPYC 7302P. 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 U1400 and EPYC 7302P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Solo ULV U1400 and EPYC 7302P. 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 16
Threads 1 32
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 5 Watt 155 Watt

Solo ULV U1400 has 3000% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7302P, on the other hand, has 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Core Solo ULV U1400 and EPYC 7302P. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Core Solo ULV U1400 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core Solo ULV U1400 and EPYC 7302P, 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 U1400
Core Solo ULV U1400
AMD EPYC 7302P
EPYC 7302P

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.


3 1 vote

Rate Core Solo ULV U1400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 27 votes

Rate EPYC 7302P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core Solo ULV U1400 or EPYC 7302P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.