EPYC 7402 vs Opteron 246
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 155 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.15 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.23 |
| Architecture codename | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | August 2003 (21 year ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $1,783 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 28 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 1.5 MB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 12 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | 940 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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
| Physical cores | 1 | 24 |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 180 Watt |
Opteron 246 has 102.2% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7402, on the other hand, has 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 246 and EPYC 7402, 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.
