Xeon X5460 vs EPYC 7351P

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7351P
2017, $750
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
14.43
+882%
Xeon X5460
2007, $1,172
4 cores / 4 threads, 120 Watt
1.47

EPYC 7351P outperforms Xeon X5460 by a whopping 882% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking5912406
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.250.03
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency3.580.52
DesignerAMDIntel
Manufacturerno dataIntel
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)Harpertown (2007−2008)
Release date20 June 2017 (8 years ago)11 November 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$750$1,172

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7351P has 14067% better value for money than Xeon X5460.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Basic parameters of EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460: 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads324
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.16 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz0.17 GHz
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache1.5 MB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache8 MB6 MB (per die)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)12 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography14 nm45 nm
Die size213 mm22x 107 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data63 °C
Number of transistors19200 Million820 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.35V

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketTR4LGA771
Power consumption (TDP)155 W, 170 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data+
FSB parityno data+

Security technologies

EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard
Maximum memory size2 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth170.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes128no data

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

EPYC 7351P 14.43
+882%
Xeon X5460 1.47

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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

EPYC 7351P 25532
+893%
Samples: 18
Xeon X5460 2571
Samples: 761

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.

EPYC 7351P 733
+81.4%
Xeon X5460 404

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.

EPYC 7351P 4607
+304%
Xeon X5460 1140

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.43 1.47
Recency 20 June 2017 11 November 2007
Physical cores 16 4
Threads 32 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 120 Watt

EPYC 7351P has a 882% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon X5460, on the other hand, has 29% lower power consumption.

The AMD EPYC 7351P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon X5460 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.4 16 votes

Rate EPYC 7351P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 359 votes

Rate Xeon X5460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors EPYC 7351P and Xeon X5460, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.