EPYC 7343 vs Xeon X7550
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7343 outperforms Xeon X7550 by a whopping 454% 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 | 1508 | 267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 12.08 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.46 | 5.54 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | no data | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,565 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Xeon X7550 and EPYC 7343 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 18 MB L3 Cache | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X7550 and EPYC 7343 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 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 190 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X7550 and EPYC 7343. 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 |
Security technologies
Xeon X7550 and EPYC 7343 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X7550 and EPYC 7343 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 X7550 and EPYC 7343. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800, DDR3-978, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, Speed-1066 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
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 X7550 and EPYC 7343.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| 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 | 4.50 | 24.94 |
| Recency | 1 January 2010 | 12 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 16 |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 190 Watt |
Xeon X7550 has 46% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7343, on the other hand, has a 454% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7343 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon X7550 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.
