EPYC 9135 vs Xeon E7540
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9135 outperforms Xeon E7540 by a whopping 460% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E7540 and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1052 | 96 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 29.29 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 5.89 | 17.30 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,214 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E7540 and EPYC 9135 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.65 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.27 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 18 MB L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 64 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,630 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E7540 and EPYC 9135 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 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E7540 and EPYC 9135. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E7540 and EPYC 9135 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E7540 and EPYC 9135 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 E7540 and EPYC 9135. 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 E7540 and EPYC 9135.
| 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. 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.53 | 36.56 |
| Recency | 1 January 2010 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 16 |
| Threads | 12 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 200 Watt |
Xeon E7540 has 90.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 459.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, 166.7% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E7540 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E7540 and EPYC 9135, 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.
