Xeon X7560 vs EPYC 7502P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7502P outperforms Xeon X7560 by a whopping 532% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 201 | 1483 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.99 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.86 | 1.50 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2019−2020) | no data |
| Release date | 7 August 2019 (6 years ago) | 1 January 2010 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,300 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7502P and Xeon X7560 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.27 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.35 GHz | 2.67 GHz |
| Multiplier | 25 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 24 MB L3 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7502P and Xeon X7560 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) | no data |
| Socket | TR4 | FCBGA1567,FCLGA1567 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7502P and Xeon X7560. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 7502P and Xeon X7560 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7502P and Xeon X7560 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7502P and Xeon X7560. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR3-800, DDR3-978, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, Speed-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.28 | 4.63 |
| Recency | 7 August 2019 | 1 January 2010 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 8 |
| Threads | 64 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 130 Watt |
EPYC 7502P has a 532% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon X7560, on the other hand, has 38% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 7502P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon X7560 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.
