EPYC 9275F vs Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core

VS

Primary details

Comparing Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerServer
Architecture codenamePaxville (2002−2005)Turin (2024)
Release dateDecember 2005 (19 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$3,439

Detailed specifications

Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F 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 cores2 (Dual-core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads248
Base clock speedno data4.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz4.8 GHz
L1 cache16 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography90 nm4 nm
Die size213 mm28x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors200 million66,520 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F 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 configuration22
Socket604SP5
Power consumption (TDP)135 Watt320 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 24
Threads 2 48
Chip lithography 90 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 135 Watt 320 Watt

Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core has 137% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 2150% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core and EPYC 9275F, 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 MP 7040 Dual-Core
Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core
AMD EPYC 9275F
EPYC 9275F

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.


3.5 2 votes

Rate Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9275F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon MP 7040 Dual-Core or EPYC 9275F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.