EPYC 4584PX vs Xeon E3-1290 v2

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E3-1290 v2
2012
4 cores / 8 threads, 87 Watt
3.98
EPYC 4584PX
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 120 Watt
37.61
+845%

EPYC 4584PX outperforms Xeon E3-1290 v2 by a whopping 845% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking143381
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.7354.13
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency4.3329.66
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$885$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 4584PX has 7315% better value for money than Xeon E3-1290 v2.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads832
Base clock speed3.7 GHz4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz5.7 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm5 nm
Die size160 mm22x 71 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data47 °C
Number of transistors1,400 million17,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1155AM5
Power consumption (TDP)87 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVXno data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Identity Protection+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size32.77 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanesno data28

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 E3-1290 v2 3.98
EPYC 4584PX 37.61
+845%

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 E3-1290 v2 6315
EPYC 4584PX 59735
+846%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.98 37.61
Recency 14 May 2012 21 May 2024
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 8 32
Chip lithography 22 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 87 Watt 120 Watt

Xeon E3-1290 v2 has 37.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4584PX, on the other hand, has a 845% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 4584PX is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E3-1290 v2 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1290 v2 and EPYC 4584PX, 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 E3-1290 v2
Xeon E3-1290 v2
AMD EPYC 4584PX
EPYC 4584PX

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.


4.1 245 votes

Rate Xeon E3-1290 v2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 7 votes

Rate EPYC 4584PX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E3-1290 v2 or EPYC 4584PX, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.