Xeon E3-1240 v3 vs EPYC 7351P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7351P outperforms Xeon E3-1240 v3 by a whopping 265% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 409 | 1322 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.50 | 2.68 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.99 | 5.24 |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Haswell-WS (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 2 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $750 | $300 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7351P has 105% better value for money than Xeon E3-1240 v3.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 24 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 8192 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 160 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3 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) | 1 |
| Socket | TR4 | FCLGA1150 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3 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 EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 8 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 16 |
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 | 16.15 | 4.43 |
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 2 June 2013 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 4 |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 80 Watt |
EPYC 7351P has a 264.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon E3-1240 v3, on the other hand, has 112.5% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 7351P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E3-1240 v3 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7351P and Xeon E3-1240 v3, 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.
