Xeon Phi 7210F vs Ryzen 5 PRO 1500
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1118 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.35 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Knights Landing (2016) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 256 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 32 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 0 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 8,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | 3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 230 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 20 June 2016 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
| Threads | 8 | 256 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 230 Watt |
Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 253.8% lower power consumption.
Xeon Phi 7210F, on the other hand, has 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Phi 7210F, 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.
