EPYC 73F3 vs Xeon E5-2667 v4

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2667 v4
2016
8 cores / 16 threads, 135 Watt
8.67
EPYC 73F3
2021
16 cores / 32 threads, 240 Watt
29.02
+235%

EPYC 73F3 outperforms Xeon E5-2667 v4 by a whopping 235% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking880153
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.536.64
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency6.0811.44
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,057$3,521

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 73F3 has 334% better value for money than Xeon E5-2667 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads1632
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/sno data
Multiplier3235
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache25 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm+
Die size246.24 mm28x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature78 °Cno data
Number of transistors3200 Million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketFCLGA2011SP3
Power consumption (TDP)135 Watt240 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3 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 E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size1.5 TB4 TiB
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s204.795 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes40128

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 E5-2667 v4 8.67
EPYC 73F3 29.02
+235%

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 E5-2667 v4 13764
EPYC 73F3 46103
+235%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.67 29.02
Recency 20 June 2016 15 March 2021
Physical cores 8 16
Threads 16 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 135 Watt 240 Watt

Xeon E5-2667 v4 has 77.8% lower power consumption.

EPYC 73F3, on the other hand, has a 234.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 73F3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2667 v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2667 v4 and EPYC 73F3, 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 E5-2667 v4
Xeon E5-2667 v4
AMD EPYC 73F3
EPYC 73F3

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.


4.4 1300 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2667 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate EPYC 73F3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2667 v4 or EPYC 73F3, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.