EPYC 7F52 vs i9-7980XE
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F52 outperforms i9-7980XE by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 291 | 181 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.02 | 5.69 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Intel Core i9 | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Skylake (server) (2017−2019) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 30 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | $3,100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7F52 has 88% better value for money than i9-7980XE.
Detailed specifications
Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52 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 | 18 (Octadeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 36 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 1.125 MB | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 18 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 24.75 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 484 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52 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 | FCLGA2066 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 GB/s | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 44 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.47 | 26.02 |
| Recency | 30 May 2017 | 14 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 18 | 16 |
| Threads | 36 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 240 Watt |
i9-7980XE has 12.5% more physical cores and 12.5% more threads, and 45.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7F52, on the other hand, has a 33.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7F52 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-7980XE in performance tests.
Note that Core i9-7980XE is a desktop processor while EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 7F52, 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.
