EPYC 7313 vs Xeon E7520
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 206 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 17.13 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.00 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,083 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 1.87 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.87 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 30 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 18 MB L3 Cache | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313 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 | FCLGA1567 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313 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 E7520 and EPYC 7313. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | 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 E7520 and EPYC 7313.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2010 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 8 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 155 Watt |
Xeon E7520 has 63.2% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7313, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E7520 and EPYC 7313, 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.
