Xeon Gold 5520 vs Athlon X4 850
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1860 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 3.09 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Godaveri (2014−2016) | no data |
| Release date | July 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520 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) | 28 (Octacosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 56 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 256K | no data |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 52.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 245 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,411 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520 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 | no data |
| Socket | FM2+ | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-2133 | DDR5-4800, DDR5-4400 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 80 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 28 |
| Threads | 4 | 56 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 205 Watt |
Athlon X4 850 has 215.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon Gold 5520, on the other hand, has 600% more physical cores and 1300% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon X4 850 is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 5520 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 850 and Xeon Gold 5520, 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.
