Xeon X3460 vs EPYC 7452

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7452
2019, $2,025
32 cores / 64 threads, 155 Watt
26.15
+1447%

EPYC 7452 outperforms Xeon X3460 by a whopping 1447% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2432309
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.480.13
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency7.120.75
DesignerAMDIntel
ManufacturerTSMCIntel
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2019−2020)Lynnfield (2009−2010)
Release date7 August 2019 (6 years ago)8 September 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,025$316

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7452 has 5654% better value for money than Xeon X3460.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Basic parameters of EPYC 7452 and Xeon X3460: 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads648
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.35 GHz3.46 GHz
Multiplier23.5no data
L1 cache96K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache128 MB (shared)8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm45 nm
Die size192 mm2296 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data73 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million774 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7452 and Xeon X3460 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketTR4FCLGA1156,LGA1156
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7452 and Xeon X3460. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data1.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data+
PAEno data36 Bit
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 7452 and Xeon X3460 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 7452 and Xeon X3460 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7452 and Xeon X3460. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333
Maximum memory size4 TiB32 GB
Max memory channels82
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/s21 GB/s
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 7452 and Xeon X3460.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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 7452 26.15
+1447%
Xeon X3460 1.69

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 7452 45658
+1444%
Samples: 34
Xeon X3460 2957
Samples: 80

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 7452 1063
+157%
Xeon X3460 414

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 7452 8498
+515%
Xeon X3460 1382

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 26.15 1.69
Recency 7 August 2019 8 September 2009
Physical cores 32 4
Threads 64 8
Chip lithography 7 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 95 Watt

EPYC 7452 has a 1447% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon X3460, on the other hand, has 63% lower power consumption.

The AMD EPYC 7452 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon X3460 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.


4.2 71 votes

Rate EPYC 7452 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 122 votes

Rate Xeon X3460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors EPYC 7452 and Xeon X3460, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.