EPYC 73F3 vs Xeon 7140M
Primary details
Comparing Xeon 7140M and EPYC 73F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in the ranking | not rated | 153 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.26 |
Market segment | Server | Server |
Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
Power efficiency | no data | 11.45 |
Architecture codename | Tulsa (2006) | Milan (2021−2023) |
Release date | August 2006 (18 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,521 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon 7140M 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
Threads | 4 | 32 |
Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 4 GHz |
Multiplier | no data | 35 |
L1 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB |
L2 cache | 1 MB | 8 MB |
L3 cache | 16 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm+ |
Die size | 435 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | no data |
Number of transistors | 1328 million | 33,200 million |
64 bit support | + | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
VID voltage range | 1.1V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 7140M 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 configuration | 1 | 2 |
Socket | PPGA604 | SP3 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 7140M 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 |
FSB parity | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon 7140M 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 7140M and EPYC 73F3 are enumerated here.
AMD-V | - | + |
VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 7140M and EPYC 73F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR4-3200 |
Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon 7140M and EPYC 73F3.
PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
Threads | 4 | 32 |
Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 240 Watt |
Xeon 7140M has 60% lower power consumption.
EPYC 73F3, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon 7140M and EPYC 73F3. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 7140M and EPYC 73F3, 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.