Xeon Platinum 8571N vs EPYC 7352

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7352
2019
24 cores / 48 threads, 155 Watt
25.41
Xeon Platinum 8571N
2023
52 cores / 104 threads, 300 Watt
43.05
+69.4%

Xeon Platinum 8571N outperforms EPYC 7352 by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19454
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.8510.42
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency15.5113.58
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Emerald Rapids (2023)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,350$6,839

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7352 has 4% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8571N.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)52
Threads48104
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz4 GHz
Multiplier23no data
L1 cache96K (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache128 MB (shared)300 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size192 mm22x 763 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data78 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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)1
SocketTR4FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt300 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Precision Boost 2+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR5 @ 4800 MT/s (1 DPC)
Maximum memory size4 TiB4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data80

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 7352 25.41
Xeon Platinum 8571N 43.05
+69.4%

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 7352 40370
Xeon Platinum 8571N 68385
+69.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 25.41 43.05
Recency 7 August 2019 14 December 2023
Physical cores 24 52
Threads 48 104
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 300 Watt

EPYC 7352 has 93.5% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8571N, on the other hand, has a 69.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 116.7% more physical cores and 116.7% more threads.

The Xeon Platinum 8571N is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7352 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7352 and Xeon Platinum 8571N, 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 7352
EPYC 7352
Intel Xeon Platinum 8571N
Xeon Platinum 8571N

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.


4.7 3 votes

Rate EPYC 7352 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Xeon Platinum 8571N on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7352 or Xeon Platinum 8571N, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.