Ultra 9 288V vs EPYC 7F52
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F52 outperforms Core Ultra 9 288V by a whopping 111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 187 | 620 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.46 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 15.88 | 38.80 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Lunar Lake (2024) |
| Release date | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 24 September 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,100 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 37 MHz |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | Intel BGA 2833 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V 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 EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | 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 | Arc 140V |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
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 | 26.01 | 12.30 |
| Recency | 14 April 2020 | 24 September 2024 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 8 |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 30 Watt |
EPYC 7F52 has a 111.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Ultra 9 288V, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 416.7% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 7F52 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Ultra 9 288V in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 9 288V is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 288V, 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.
