EPYC Embedded 8534P vs EPYC 7252
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 621 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.28 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.64 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) | 1 October 2024 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $475 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | 31 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 4x 73 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 75 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 35,500 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | TR4 | SP6 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 96 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 7 August 2019 | 1 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 64 |
| Threads | 16 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 200 Watt |
EPYC 7252 has 66.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC Embedded 8534P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7252 and EPYC Embedded 8534P, 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.
