EPYC 9015 vs Xeon X3320
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9015 outperforms Xeon X3320 by a whopping 1252% 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 | 2532 | 464 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 26.23 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.53 | 5.43 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (17 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $527 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3320 and EPYC 9015 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,630 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3320 and EPYC 9015 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 | LGA775 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3320 and EPYC 9015. 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 | + | - |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon X3320 and EPYC 9015 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 X3320 and EPYC 9015 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3320 and EPYC 9015. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3320 and EPYC 9015.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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 | 1.18 | 15.95 |
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 10 October 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Xeon X3320 has 31.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9015, on the other hand, has a 1251.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9015 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon X3320 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.
