Xeon Platinum 8571N vs EPYC 7713

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7713
2021
64 cores / 128 threads, 225 Watt
54.13
+20.9%
Xeon Platinum 8571N
2023
52 cores / 104 threads, 300 Watt
44.78

EPYC 7713 outperforms Xeon Platinum 8571N by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2851
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.9910.30
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency21.8913.58
Architecture codenameMilan (2021−2023)Emerald Rapids (2023)
Release date12 January 2021 (3 years ago)14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$7,060$6,839

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Platinum 8571N has 158% better value for money than EPYC 7713.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 cores64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)52
Threads128104
Base clock speed2 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.68 GHz4 GHz
Multiplier20no data
L1 cache4 MB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache32 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache256 MB (shared)300 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm+Intel 7 nm
Die size8x 81 mm22x 763 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data78 °C
Number of transistors33,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 configuration21
SocketSP3FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt300 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Statusno dataLaunched
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR5 @ 4800 MT/s (1 DPC)
Maximum memory size4 TiB4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidth204.795 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N.

PCIe version4.05.0
PCI Express lanes12880

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.

EPYC 7713 54.13
+20.9%
Xeon Platinum 8571N 44.78

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.

EPYC 7713 82666
+20.9%
Xeon Platinum 8571N 68385

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 54.13 44.78
Recency 12 January 2021 14 December 2023
Physical cores 64 52
Threads 128 104
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 300 Watt

EPYC 7713 has a 20.9% higher aggregate performance score, 23.1% more physical cores and 23.1% more threads, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8571N, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.

The EPYC 7713 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8571N in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7713 and Xeon Platinum 8571N, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7713
EPYC 7713
Intel Xeon Platinum 8571N
Xeon Platinum 8571N

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.

Community ratings

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


2 115 votes

Rate EPYC 7713 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Xeon Platinum 8571N on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7713 or Xeon Platinum 8571N, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.