EPYC 9135 vs Xeon E5-2658
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9135 outperforms Xeon E5-2658 by a whopping 844% 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 | 1534 | 110 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.41 | 29.36 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 3.82 | 17.12 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (13 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,462 | $1,214 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9135 has 7061% better value for money than Xeon E5-2658.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2658 and EPYC 9135 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.65 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20480 KB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 16,630 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2658 and EPYC 9135 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 | 2011 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2658 and EPYC 9135. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2658 and EPYC 9135 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2658 and EPYC 9135 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2658 and EPYC 9135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2658 and EPYC 9135.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 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.
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 | 3.79 | 35.77 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 16 |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 200 Watt |
Xeon E5-2658 has 110.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 843.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon E5-2658 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.
