EPYC 7203 vs Ryzen 3 3200G
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1313 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 29 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.90 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.53 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 12 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 5 September 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $338 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Multiplier | 36 | no data |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | 2x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4940 Million | 8,300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203 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) | 2 |
| Socket | AM4 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203. 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 Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 June 2019 | 5 September 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 120 Watt |
Ryzen 3 3200G has 84.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7203, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 3 3200G is a desktop processor while EPYC 7203 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 3200G and EPYC 7203, 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.
