EPYC 7642 vs Xeon E5430

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5430
2007, $455
4 cores / 4 threads, 80 Watt
1.29
EPYC 7642
2019, $4,775
48 cores / 96 threads, 225 Watt
34.24
+2554%

EPYC 7642 outperforms Xeon E5430 by a whopping 2554% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2524141
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.055.05
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency0.686.42
DesignerIntelAMD
ManufacturerIntelTSMC
Architecture codenameHarpertown (2007−2008)Zen 2 (2019−2020)
Release date11 November 2007 (18 years ago)7 August 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$455$4,775

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7642 has 10000% better value for money than Xeon E5430.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Basic parameters of Xeon E5430 and EPYC 7642: 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)48 (Octatetraconta-Core)
Threads496
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed0.67 GHz3.4 GHz
Multiplierno data23
L1 cache64 KB (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache6 MB (per die)512K (per core)
L3 cache12 MB L2 Cache256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2192 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)63 °Cno data
Number of transistors820 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range0.85V-1.35Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5430 and EPYC 7642 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 configuration22 (Multiprocessor)
SocketLGA771TR4
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5430 and EPYC 7642. 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
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching+no data
FSB parity+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5430 and EPYC 7642 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 E5430 and EPYC 7642 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data
EPT-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5430 and EPYC 7642. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboardDDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5430 and EPYC 7642.

PCIe version2.0no data

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Xeon E5430 1.29
EPYC 7642 34.24
+2554%

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.

Xeon E5430 2256
Samples: 299
EPYC 7642 58698
+2502%
Samples: 18

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Xeon E5430 352
EPYC 7642 1205
+242%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Xeon E5430 990
EPYC 7642 10629
+974%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.29 34.24
Recency 11 November 2007 7 August 2019
Physical cores 4 48
Threads 4 96
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 225 Watt

Xeon E5430 has 181% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7642, on the other hand, has a 2554% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

The AMD EPYC 7642 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon E5430 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 179 votes

Rate Xeon E5430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 11 votes

Rate EPYC 7642 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Xeon E5430 and EPYC 7642, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.