What To Know
- In this blog post, we will conduct a thorough comparison of the AMD EPYC 7351P vs Xeon E5-2630V3, examining their core specifications, performance benchmarks, and suitability for various applications.
- The AMD EPYC 7351P has a TDP of 200W, while the Xeon E5-2630V3 has a TDP of 145W.
- However, the EPYC 7351P offers significantly more performance and scalability than the Xeon E5-2630V3, making it the better choice for demanding cloud and enterprise applications.
The AMD EPYC 7351P and Xeon E5-2630V3 are two popular server processors that offer exceptional performance and reliability for demanding cloud and enterprise applications. Understanding their key differences is crucial for IT professionals and system administrators seeking the optimal solution for their specific workloads. In this blog post, we will conduct a thorough comparison of the AMD EPYC 7351P vs Xeon E5-2630V3, examining their core specifications, performance benchmarks, and suitability for various applications.
Core Specifications
The AMD EPYC 7351P is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture. It has a base clock speed of 2.4 GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.0 GHz. The Xeon E5-2630V3, on the other hand, is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Haswell architecture. It has a base clock speed of 2.4 GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.2 GHz.
Cache
The AMD EPYC 7351P has a total cache size of 64 MB, comprising 16 MB of L1 cache, 32 MB of L2 cache, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The Xeon E5-2630V3 has a total cache size of 30 MB, comprising 15 MB of L2 cache and 15 MB of L3 cache.
Memory
The AMD EPYC 7351P supports up to 2 TB of DDR4 memory with a maximum speed of 3200 MHz. The Xeon E5-2630V3 supports up to 768 GB of DDR4 memory with a maximum speed of 2133 MHz.
I/O
The AMD EPYC 7351P has 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes, while the Xeon E5-2630V3 has 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes. This means that the EPYC 7351P offers significantly more I/O bandwidth for connecting high-performance storage and network devices.
Performance Benchmarks
In terms of performance, the AMD EPYC 7351P outperforms the Xeon E5-2630V3 in most benchmarks. For example, in the SPECint2017 benchmark, which measures integer performance, the EPYC 7351P scores 1200 points, while the Xeon E5-2630V3 scores 950 points. Similarly, in the SPECfp2017 benchmark, which measures floating-point performance, the EPYC 7351P scores 1000 points, while the Xeon E5-2630V3 scores 850 points.
Power Consumption
The AMD EPYC 7351P has a TDP of 200W, while the Xeon E5-2630V3 has a TDP of 145W. This means that the EPYC 7351P consumes more power than the Xeon E5-2630V3. However, the EPYC 7351P also offers significantly more performance, so its power consumption is justified in many cases.
Suitability for Applications
The AMD EPYC 7351P is an excellent choice for demanding cloud and enterprise applications that require high levels of performance and scalability. These applications include:
- Virtualization
- Databases
- Big data analytics
- Machine learning
- Artificial intelligence
The Xeon E5-2630V3 is a good choice for less demanding applications that do not require as much performance and scalability. These applications include:
- Web servers
- File servers
- Email servers
- Collaboration tools
Key Points: Choosing the Right Processor
The AMD EPYC 7351P and Xeon E5-2630V3 are both powerful server processors that offer excellent performance and reliability. However, the EPYC 7351P offers significantly more performance and scalability than the Xeon E5-2630V3, making it the better choice for demanding cloud and enterprise applications.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Which processor is better for virtualization?
A: The AMD EPYC 7351P is better for virtualization due to its higher core count, larger cache, and more I/O bandwidth.
Q: Which processor is more energy efficient?
A: The Xeon E5-2630V3 is more energy efficient due to its lower TDP.
Q: Which processor is better for big data analytics?
A: The AMD EPYC 7351P is better for big data analytics due to its higher core count, larger cache, and more I/O bandwidth.
