EPYC 7313P vs i3-7360X
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 184 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 21.33 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.99 |
| Architecture codename | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 3 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $913 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 30 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P 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 | 1 |
| Socket | 2066 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 112 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | 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 i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 3 October 2017 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 112 Watt | 155 Watt |
i3-7360X has 38.4% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7313P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core i3-7360X is a desktop processor while EPYC 7313P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-7360X and EPYC 7313P, 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.
