Xeon Silver 4210 vs EPYC 8324P

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 8324P
2023
32 cores / 64 threads, 180 Watt
35.96
+321%
Xeon Silver 4210
2019
10 cores / 20 threads, 85 Watt
8.55

EPYC 8324P outperforms Xeon Silver 4210 by a whopping 321% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking102893
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.5319.23
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon Silver
Power efficiency18.919.52
Architecture codenameSiena (2023−2024)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date18 September 2023 (1 year ago)2 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,895$501

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Silver 4210 has 10% better value for money than EPYC 8324P.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)10 (Deca-Core)
Threads6420
Base clock speed2.65 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.2 GHz
Multiplierno data22
L1 cache64 KB (per core)640 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)10 MB
L3 cache128 MB (shared)13.75 MB
Chip lithography5 nm14 nm
Die size4x 73 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data78 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)75 °Cno data
Number of transistors35,500 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data+

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210 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 configuration12 (Multiprocessor)
SocketSP6FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt85 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® 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-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Precision Boost 2+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210 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 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR4-2400
Maximum memory sizeno data1 TB
Max memory channelsno data6
Maximum memory bandwidthno data115.212 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210.

PCIe version5.03.0
PCI Express lanes9648

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 8324P 35.96
+321%
Xeon Silver 4210 8.55

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 8324P 57127
+321%
Xeon Silver 4210 13575

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.96 8.55
Recency 18 September 2023 2 April 2019
Physical cores 32 10
Threads 64 20
Chip lithography 5 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 85 Watt

EPYC 8324P has a 320.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 220% more physical cores and 220% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon Silver 4210, on the other hand, has 111.8% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 8324P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Silver 4210 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 8324P and Xeon Silver 4210, 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 8324P
EPYC 8324P
Intel Xeon Silver 4210
Xeon Silver 4210

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 8324P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 47 votes

Rate Xeon Silver 4210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 8324P or Xeon Silver 4210, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.