Xeon X5450 vs EPYC 7551P

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7551P
2017, $2,100
32 cores / 64 threads, 180 Watt
21.77
+1466%

EPYC 7551P outperforms Xeon X5450 by a whopping 1466% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3212458
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.460.03
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency5.100.49
DesignerAMDIntel
Manufacturerno dataIntel
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)Harpertown (2007−2008)
Release date29 June 2017 (8 years ago)11 November 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,100$851

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7551P has 11433% better value for money than Xeon X5450.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7551P and Xeon X5450 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads644
Base clock speed2 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3 GHz
Multiplier20no data
L1 cache96K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)6 MB (per die)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)12 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography14 nm45 nm
Die size192 mm22x 107 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data63 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million820 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.35V

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7551P and Xeon X5450 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)180 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7551P and Xeon X5450. 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 7551P and Xeon X5450 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 7551P and Xeon X5450 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7551P and Xeon X5450. 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 7551P and Xeon X5450.

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 7551P 21.77
+1466%
Xeon X5450 1.39

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 7551P 38111
+1470%
Samples: 86
Xeon X5450 2428
Samples: 509

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 7551P 915
+135%
Xeon X5450 389

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 7551P 6325
+463%
Xeon X5450 1123

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.77 1.39
Recency 29 June 2017 11 November 2007
Physical cores 32 4
Threads 64 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 120 Watt

EPYC 7551P has a 1466% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon X5450, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The AMD EPYC 7551P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon X5450 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.


4.3 89 votes

Rate EPYC 7551P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 345 votes

Rate Xeon X5450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors EPYC 7551P and Xeon X5450, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.