Xeon E5-2676 V3 vs EPYC 7302

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7302
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
21.63
+145%

EPYC 7302 outperforms Xeon E5-2676 V3 by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking259882
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.28no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency12.726.72
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$978no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads3224
Base clock speed3 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3 GHz
Multiplier30no data
L1 cache1 MB64K (per core)
L2 cache8 MB256K (per core)
L3 cache128 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm22 nm
Die size192 mm2356 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million2,600 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketTR42011-3
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR3, DDR4 2133 MHz Quad-channel
Maximum memory size4 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data40

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.

EPYC 7302 21.63
+145%
Xeon E5-2676 V3 8.84

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.

EPYC 7302 33106
+145%
Xeon E5-2676 V3 13524

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

EPYC 7302 1209
+92.2%
Xeon E5-2676 V3 629

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

EPYC 7302 8691
+277%
Xeon E5-2676 V3 2308

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.63 8.84
Physical cores 16 12
Threads 32 24
Chip lithography 7 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 120 Watt

EPYC 7302 has a 144.7% higher aggregate performance score, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon E5-2676 V3, on the other hand, has 29.2% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7302 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2676 V3 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7302 and Xeon E5-2676 V3, 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.


AMD EPYC 7302
EPYC 7302
Intel Xeon E5-2676 V3
Xeon E5-2676 V3

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.


3.7 30 votes

Rate EPYC 7302 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 129 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2676 V3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7302 or Xeon E5-2676 V3, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.