Xeon 6315P vs EPYC 7F52
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 208 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.56 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.22 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) |
| Release date | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 24 February 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,100 | $213 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | 163 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | 1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 240 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR4, DDR5 |
| 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 | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F52 and Xeon 6315P.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 14 April 2020 | 24 February 2025 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 4 |
| Threads | 32 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 240 Watt | 55 Watt |
EPYC 7F52 has 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon 6315P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and 336.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between AMD EPYC 7F52 and Intel Xeon 6315P. We've got no test results to judge.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
