EPYC 9175F vs Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1264 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 29.72 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 8 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,256 |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F 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 | 8 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 5 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Multiplier | 23 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 512 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | 16x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4940 Million | 133,040 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F 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 | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F. 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 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 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 10 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 8 April 2019 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 8 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 320 Watt |
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U has 2033.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9175F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 200% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is a notebook processor while EPYC 9175F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U and EPYC 9175F, 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.
