EPYC 73F3 vs Xeon 5160

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon 5160
2006
2 cores / 2 threads, 80 Watt
0.61
EPYC 73F3
2021
16 cores / 32 threads, 240 Watt
29.02
+4657%

EPYC 73F3 outperforms Xeon 5160 by a whopping 4657% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2803153
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.156.64
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency0.7211.44
Architecture codenameWoodcrest (2006)Milan (2021−2023)
Release dateJune 2006 (18 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$22$3,521

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 73F3 has 209% better value for money than Xeon 5160.

Detailed specifications

Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3 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 cores2 (Dual-core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads232
Base clock speed3 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz4 GHz
Multiplierno data35
L1 cache0 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm7 nm+
Die sizeno data8x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature65 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
VID voltage rangeB2=1.0V-1.5V, G0=.85V-1.5Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3 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
SocketLGA771SP3
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt240 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE32 Bitno data
FSB parity+no data

Security technologies

Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data
EPT-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR2DDR4-3200
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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.

Xeon 5160 0.61
EPYC 73F3 29.02
+4657%

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.

Xeon 5160 963
EPYC 73F3 46103
+4687%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 29.02
Physical cores 2 16
Threads 2 32
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 240 Watt

Xeon 5160 has 200% lower power consumption.

EPYC 73F3, on the other hand, has a 4657.4% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 73F3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon 5160 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 5160 and EPYC 73F3, 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.


Intel Xeon 5160
Xeon 5160
AMD EPYC 73F3
EPYC 73F3

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.


4.1 8 votes

Rate Xeon 5160 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 2 votes

Rate EPYC 73F3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon 5160 or EPYC 73F3, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.