i3-N305 vs EPYC 7551P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7551P outperforms Core i3-N305 by a whopping 283% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 208 | 1063 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.00 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.62 | 39.56 |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Alder Lake-N (2023) |
| Release date | 20 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,100 | $309 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 0.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | 20 | no data |
| L1 cache | 3 MB | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 2 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 19200 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 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) | 1 |
| Socket | TR4 | FCBGA1264 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| GPIO | no data | + |
Security technologies
EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 8 | 1 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.25 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 32 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096 x 2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 9 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.2 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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 | 24.00 | 6.27 |
| Recency | 20 June 2017 | 3 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 8 |
| Threads | 64 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 15 Watt |
EPYC 7551P has a 282.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads.
i3-N305, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and 1100% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 7551P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-N305 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7551P is a server/workstation processor while Core i3-N305 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7551P and Core i3-N305, 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.
