EPYC 7303 vs Xeon Silver 4210R

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Silver 4210R
2020
10 cores / 20 threads, 100 Watt
9.55
EPYC 7303
2023
16 cores / 32 threads, 130 Watt
18.05
+89%

EPYC 7303 outperforms Xeon Silver 4210R by an impressive 89% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking795337
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation28.0521.12
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Silverno data
Power efficiency9.0013.08
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date24 February 2020 (4 years ago)5 September 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$511$604

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Silver 4210R has 33% better value for money than EPYC 7303.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads2032
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz3.4 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache640 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache10 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache13.75 MB64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die sizeno data2x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature84 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data8,300 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303 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 configurationno data2
SocketFCLGA3647SP3
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt130 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303 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 Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR4
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth115.212 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes48128

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon Silver 4210R 9.55
EPYC 7303 18.05
+89%

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.

Xeon Silver 4210R 15118
EPYC 7303 28572
+89%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.55 18.05
Recency 24 February 2020 5 September 2023
Physical cores 10 16
Threads 20 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 130 Watt

Xeon Silver 4210R has 30% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7303, on the other hand, has a 89% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 60% more physical cores and 60% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7303 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Silver 4210R in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Silver 4210R and EPYC 7303, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon Silver 4210R
Xeon Silver 4210R
AMD EPYC 7303
EPYC 7303

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.

Community ratings

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


3.2 37 votes

Rate Xeon Silver 4210R on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 7303 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Silver 4210R or EPYC 7303, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.