3020e vs EPYC 7F52

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7F52
2020
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
26.01
+1600%

EPYC 7F52 outperforms 3020e by a whopping 1600% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7F52 and 3020e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1872124
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.46no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesAMD EPYCAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)
Power efficiency15.8824.13
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Dali (Zen) (2020)
Release date14 April 2020 (4 years ago)4 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,100no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7F52 and 3020e 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads322
Base clock speed3.5 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz2.6 GHz
Multiplier35no data
L1 cache96K (per core)192 KB
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache256 MB (shared)4 MB
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm14 nm
Die size74 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors3,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7F52 and 3020e 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 configuration2no data
SocketSP3FT5
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F52 and 3020e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F52 and 3020e are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7F52 and 3020e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR4
Maximum memory size4 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F52 and 3020e.

PCIe version4.0no data

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.

EPYC 7F52 26.01
+1600%
3020e 1.53

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.

EPYC 7F52 41322
+1596%
3020e 2436

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

EPYC 7F52 1442
+118%
3020e 661

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

EPYC 7F52 10640
+884%
3020e 1081

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 26.01 1.53
Recency 14 April 2020 4 August 2020
Physical cores 16 2
Threads 32 2
Chip lithography 7 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 6 Watt

EPYC 7F52 has a 1600% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

3020e, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, and 2483.3% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7F52 is our recommended choice as it beats the 3020e in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation processor while 3020e is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7F52 and 3020e, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7F52
EPYC 7F52
AMD 3020e
3020e

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 9 votes

Rate EPYC 7F52 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 812 votes

Rate 3020e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7F52 or 3020e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.