EPYC 7351P vs Xeon E-2136
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7351P outperforms Xeon E-2136 by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 900 | 415 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 25.83 | 5.62 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon E | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 10.03 | 8.99 |
| Architecture codename | Coffee Lake-S WS (2018−2019) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 12 July 2018 (6 years ago) | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $289 | $750 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E-2136 has 360% better value for money than EPYC 7351P.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 33 | 24 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 154 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P 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) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1151 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 170 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| MPX | + | - |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 170.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics P630 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 128 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.48 | 16.15 |
| Recency | 12 July 2018 | 29 June 2017 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 16 |
| Threads | 12 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 170 Watt |
Xeon E-2136 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 112.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7351P, on the other hand, has a 90.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 166.7% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads.
The EPYC 7351P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E-2136 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E-2136 and EPYC 7351P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
