EPYC 7513 vs E-240
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7513 outperforms E-240 by a whopping 30700% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E-240 and EPYC 7513 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3413 | 90 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 11.39 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD E-Series | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.63 | 17.60 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,840 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
E-240 and EPYC 7513 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 3.65 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 26 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E-240 and EPYC 7513 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 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-240 and EPYC 7513. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-240 and EPYC 7513 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-240 and EPYC 7513. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-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 | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E-240 and EPYC 7513.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.12 | 36.96 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 32 |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 200 Watt |
E-240 has 1011.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7513, on the other hand, has a 30700% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7513 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-240 in performance tests.
Be aware that E-240 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7513 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
