EPYC 9455 vs Ryzen 3 3300U
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1510 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 22.54 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $5,412 |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455 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) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.15 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Multiplier | 21 | no data |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 192 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | 6x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4940 Million | 49,890 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455 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 | FP5 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 300 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 January 2019 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 48 |
| Threads | 4 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 300 Watt |
Ryzen 3 3300U has 1900% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9455, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 200% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Ryzen 3 3300U is a notebook processor while EPYC 9455 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 3300U and EPYC 9455, 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.
