Xeon D-2896TER vs EPYC 7203P
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Architecture codename | Milan (2021−2023) | no data |
| Release date | 5 September 2023 (1 year ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $348 | no data |
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER 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) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 40 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 30 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | no data |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,300 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | SP3 | FCBGA2579 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 110 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 32 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 24 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 4 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 8 | 20 |
| Threads | 16 | 40 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 110 Watt |
Xeon D-2896TER has 150% more physical cores and 150% more threads, and 9.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7203P and Xeon D-2896TER, 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.
