EPYC 7313P vs FX-7600P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7313P outperforms FX-7600P by a whopping 1507% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2081 | 184 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 21.33 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Kaveri | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 4.41 | 15.99 |
| Architecture codename | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 4 June 2014 (10 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $913 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | BGA (FP3) | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 30 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 245 mm2 | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,410 million | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FP3 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| FRTC | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| Out-of-band client management | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| HSA | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-2133 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | N/A |
| iGPU core count | 8 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 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. 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.63 | 26.19 |
| Recency | 4 June 2014 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 155 Watt |
FX-7600P has 342.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7313P, on the other hand, has a 1506.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7313P is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-7600P in performance tests.
Be aware that FX-7600P is a notebook processor while EPYC 7313P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-7600P and EPYC 7313P, 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.
