EPYC 9375F vs Xeon X3480
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9375F outperforms Xeon X3480 by a whopping 2721% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3480 and EPYC 9375F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1949 | 21 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 7.49 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 2.05 | 17.13 |
| Architecture codename | Lynnfield (2009−2010) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 30 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $612 | $5,306 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9375F has 2781% better value for money than Xeon X3480.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3480 and EPYC 9375F 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 3.85 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.73 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 296 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 73 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 774 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3480 and EPYC 9375F 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | FCLGA1156,LGA1156 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3480 and EPYC 9375F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon X3480 and EPYC 9375F 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 X3480 and EPYC 9375F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3480 and EPYC 9375F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3480 and EPYC 9375F.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 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 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 | 2.04 | 57.54 |
| Recency | 30 May 2010 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 32 |
| Threads | 8 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 320 Watt |
Xeon X3480 has 236.8% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9375F, on the other hand, has a 2720.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9375F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3480 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.
