EPYC 4564P vs Xeon E5-1630 v3

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-1630 v3
2014
4 cores / 8 threads, 140 Watt
4.66
EPYC 4564P
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 170 Watt
39.07
+738%

EPYC 4564P outperforms Xeon E5-1630 v3 by a whopping 738% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking127772
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data53.48
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency3.1521.75
Architecture codenameHaswell-EP (2014−2015)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date8 September 2014 (10 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads832
Base clock speed3.7 GHz4.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz5.7 GHz
Bus rate0 GT/sno data
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache10 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm5 nm
Die size356 mm22x 71 mm2
Maximum core temperature66 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data47 °C
Number of transistors2,600 million13,140 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA2011AM5
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt170 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection+-
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P 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 E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1333, DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133DDR5
Maximum memory size768 GBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth68 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4028

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.

Xeon E5-1630 v3 4.66
EPYC 4564P 39.07
+738%

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.

Xeon E5-1630 v3 7397
EPYC 4564P 62061
+739%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.66 39.07
Recency 8 September 2014 21 May 2024
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 8 32
Chip lithography 22 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 170 Watt

Xeon E5-1630 v3 has 21.4% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4564P, on the other hand, has a 738.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 4564P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-1630 v3 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1630 v3 and EPYC 4564P, 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.


Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3
Xeon E5-1630 v3
AMD EPYC 4564P
EPYC 4564P

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.


3.8 56 votes

Rate Xeon E5-1630 v3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 2 votes

Rate EPYC 4564P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-1630 v3 or EPYC 4564P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.