EPYC 7343 vs Xeon E5-2670 v4
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 172 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.86 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,565 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 28 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | no data |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 31 | 32 |
| L1 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 3.5 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 35 MB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 306.18 mm2 | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4700 Million | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343 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 (Multiprocessor) | 2 |
| Socket | no data | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 190 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
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 E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 12 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 16 |
| Threads | 28 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 190 Watt |
Xeon E5-2670 v4 has 58.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7343, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, 14.3% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2670 v4 and EPYC 7343, 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.
