EPYC 7351 vs Apple M5 Max
Aggregate performance score
M5 Max outperforms EPYC 7351 by a whopping 150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 165 | 717 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.52 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.26 |
| Designer | Apple | AMD |
| Architecture codename | no data | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 3 March 2026 (less than a year ago) | 29 June 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of M5 Max and EPYC 7351: 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 | 18 (Octadeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 18 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.048 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.61 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 32 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on M5 Max and EPYC 7351 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 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 170 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M5 Max and EPYC 7351. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by M5 Max and EPYC 7351 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M5 Max and EPYC 7351. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 170.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M5 Max and EPYC 7351.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.78 | 13.50 |
| Recency | 3 March 2026 | 29 June 2017 |
| Physical cores | 18 | 16 |
| Threads | 18 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
Apple M5 Max has a 150% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 13% more physical cores, and a 367% more advanced lithography process.
EPYC 7351, on the other hand, has 78% more threads.
The Apple M5 Max is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 7351 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M5 Max is a notebook processor while EPYC 7351 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
