EPYC 9554 vs Xeon E6540
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 8 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.97 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.50 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,087 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.27 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | no data | 4 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 64 MB |
| L3 cache | 18 MB L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 72 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 52,560 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554 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 | FCLGA1567 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554 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 E6540 and EPYC 9554. 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 E6540 and EPYC 9554.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2010 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 64 |
| Threads | 12 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 360 Watt |
Xeon E6540 has 242.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9554, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, 966.7% more physical cores and 966.7% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E6540 and EPYC 9554, 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.
