Xeon E7-8890 v4 vs EPYC 9754

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9754
2023
128 cores / 256 threads, 360 Watt
63.24
+4802%
Xeon E7-8890 v4
2016
24 cores / 48 threads, 165 Watt
1.29

EPYC 9754 outperforms Xeon E7-8890 v4 by a whopping 4802% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking122284
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.090.01
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon E7
Power efficiency16.610.74
Architecture codenameBergamo (2023)Broadwell (2015−2019)
Release date13 June 2023 (1 year ago)20 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$11,900$7,174

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9754 has 10800% better value for money than Xeon E7-8890 v4.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 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 cores12824 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads25648
Base clock speed2.25 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz3.4 GHz
Bus typeno dataQPI
Bus rateno data3 × 9.6 GT/s
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)6 MB
L3 cache256 MB (shared)60 MB
Chip lithography5 nm14 nm
Die size8x 73 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data79 °C
Number of transistors71,000 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 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 configuration28 (Multiprocessor)
SocketSP5FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)360 Watt165 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 v4. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAEno data46 Bit
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 v4 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 v4 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 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR4-1333, DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600
Maximum memory sizeno data3 TB
Max memory channelsno data4
Maximum memory bandwidthno data85 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 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 v4.

PCIe version5.03.0
PCI Express lanes12832

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 9754 63.24
+4802%
Xeon E7-8890 v4 1.29

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 9754 100460
+4791%
Xeon E7-8890 v4 2054

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 63.24 1.29
Recency 13 June 2023 20 June 2016
Physical cores 128 24
Threads 256 48
Chip lithography 5 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 360 Watt 165 Watt

EPYC 9754 has a 4802.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 433.3% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon E7-8890 v4, on the other hand, has 118.2% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9754 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E7-8890 v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and Xeon E7-8890 v4, 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 9754
EPYC 9754
Intel Xeon E7-8890 v4
Xeon E7-8890 v4

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 37 votes

Rate EPYC 9754 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.9 28 votes

Rate Xeon E7-8890 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9754 or Xeon E7-8890 v4, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.