EPYC 9575F vs Xeon E5205
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9575F outperforms Xeon E5205 by a whopping 17942% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2948 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.74 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.77 | 22.44 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $11,791 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5205 and EPYC 9575F 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 | no data | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 5 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 66 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.212V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5205 and EPYC 9575F 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 | no data | 2 |
| Socket | LGA771 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5205 and EPYC 9575F. 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 |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5205 and EPYC 9575F 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 E5205 and EPYC 9575F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5205 and EPYC 9575F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
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 E5205 and EPYC 9575F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
- Passmark
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 93.82 |
| Recency | 1 October 2007 | 10 October 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 400 Watt |
Xeon E5205 has 515.4% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9575F, on the other hand, has a 17942.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9575F is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon E5205 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
