EPYC 9654 vs Xeon E5220
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 6 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.29 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 19.91 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $11,805 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654 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 | no data | 96 |
| Threads | no data | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 66 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654 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 | no data | 2 |
| Socket | LGA771 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 10 November 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 360 Watt |
Xeon E5220 has 453.8% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5220 and EPYC 9654, 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.
