EPYC Embedded 3451 vs Xeon E5-2673 v4
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 576 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | AMD EPYC Embedded |
| Power efficiency | 9.11 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $880 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451 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 | 20 (Icosa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 40 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.15 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | no data |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 23 | 21.5 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 5 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 50 MB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 456.12 mm2 | 2x 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 7200 Million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | AMD BGA SP4r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | 1 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 85.33 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 64 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 21 February 2018 |
| Physical cores | 20 | 16 |
| Threads | 40 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 100 Watt |
Xeon E5-2673 v4 has 25% more physical cores and 25% more threads.
EPYC Embedded 3451, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 35% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2673 v4 and EPYC Embedded 3451, 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.
