EPYC 7473X vs i5-520E
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in performance ranking | not rated | 76 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Market segment | Laptop | Server |
Series | Intel Core i5 | no data |
Architecture codename | Westmere (2010−2011) | Milan-X (2022) |
Release date | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $210 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
Threads | 4 | 48 |
Base clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
Bus type | DMI 1.0 | no data |
Bus rate | 1 × 2.5 GT/s | no data |
Multiplier | 18 | no data |
L1 cache | 128 KB | 64K (per core) |
L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K (per core) |
L3 cache | 3 MB | 768 MB (shared) |
Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
Die size | 81 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
Number of transistors | 382 Million | 33,200 million |
64 bit support | + | - |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X 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 (Uniprocessor) | 2 |
Socket | no data | SP3 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
AES-NI | + | + |
FMA | + | - |
AVX | - | + |
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X are enumerated here.
AMD-V | - | + |
VT-d | + | no data |
VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR3-1066 | DDR4-3200 |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Maximum memory bandwidth | 17.051 GB/s | no data |
ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X.
PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
PCI Express lanes | 16 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
Recency | 7 January 2010 | 22 March 2022 |
Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
Threads | 4 | 48 |
Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 240 Watt |
i5-520E has 585.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7473X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, 1100% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Core i5-520E is a notebook processor while EPYC 7473X is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-520E and EPYC 7473X, 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.