EPYC 9015 vs Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 450 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 22.39 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Cezanne PRO (Zen 3) (2021) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 June 2021 (3 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $527 |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | 38 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 180 mm2 | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10,700 million | 16,630 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015 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 | 2 |
| Socket | AM4 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | PRO, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.196 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 June 2021 | 10 October 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G has 92.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9015, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G is a desktop processor while EPYC 9015 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and EPYC 9015, 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.
