EPYC 7F52 vs Xeon E7340
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F52 outperforms Xeon E7340 by a whopping 527% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1763 | 319 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | 2.71 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.96 | 4.10 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Tigerton (2007) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 5 September 2007 (18 years ago) | 14 April 2020 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,980 | $3,100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7F52 has 3771% better value for money than Xeon E7340.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Xeon E7340 and EPYC 7F52: 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (per die) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB L2 Cache | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 2x 143 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 66 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 582 million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.0V-1.5V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E7340 and EPYC 7F52 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 | 4 | 2 |
| Socket | PGA604,PPGA604 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E7340 and EPYC 7F52. 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 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E7340 and EPYC 7F52 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 E7340 and EPYC 7F52 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E7340 and EPYC 7F52. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E7340 and EPYC 7F52.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.82 | 23.94 |
| Recency | 5 September 2007 | 14 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 240 Watt |
Xeon E7340 has 200% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7F52, on the other hand, has a 527% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 829% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7F52 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon E7340 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.
