Xeon L5408 vs EPYC 9575F
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9575F outperforms Xeon L5408 by a whopping 8268% 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 | 8 | 2692 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.83 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 22.45 | 2.68 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Harpertown (2007−2008) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) | 27 February 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,791 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9575F and Xeon L5408 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 128 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 2.133 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5 GHz | 0.13 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 6 MB (per die) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 87 °C |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9575F and Xeon L5408 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 | 2 |
| Socket | SP5 | 771 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 40 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9575F and Xeon L5408. 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 9575F and Xeon L5408 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9575F and Xeon L5408 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9575F and Xeon L5408. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard |
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 9575F and Xeon L5408.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no 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.
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 | 83.68 | 1.00 |
| Recency | 10 October 2024 | 27 February 2008 |
| Physical cores | 64 | 4 |
| Threads | 128 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 40 Watt |
EPYC 9575F has a 8268% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon L5408, on the other hand, has 900% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9575F is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon L5408 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.
