Xeon E5-2670 v4 vs EPYC 7281
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 541 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.69 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | Intel Xeon E5 |
| Power efficiency | 7.58 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $650 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 28 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | QPI |
| Bus rate | no data | 2 × 9.6 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 21 | 31 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 3.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB (shared) | 35 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 306.18 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 4700 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | TR4 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 1,536 GB |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 40 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 20 June 2016 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 14 |
| Threads | 32 | 28 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 120 Watt |
EPYC 7281 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 14.3% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads.
Xeon E5-2670 v4, on the other hand, has 41.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7281 and Xeon E5-2670 v4, 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.
