Xeon w9-3495X vs EPYC 7302P
Aggregate performance score
Xeon w9-3495X outperforms EPYC 7302P by a whopping 181% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 267 | 21 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 12.90 | 18.77 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.56 | 15.65 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) | 15 February 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $825 | $5,889 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon w9-3495X has 46% better value for money than EPYC 7302P.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 56 (Hexapentaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 112 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | 30 | no data |
| L1 cache | 1 MB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 105 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 4x 477 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 81 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | TR4 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 350 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X 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 EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 112 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.57 | 57.88 |
| Recency | 7 August 2019 | 15 February 2023 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 56 |
| Threads | 32 | 112 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 350 Watt |
EPYC 7302P has 125.8% lower power consumption.
Xeon w9-3495X, on the other hand, has a 181.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 250% more physical cores and 250% more threads.
The Xeon w9-3495X is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7302P in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7302P and Xeon w9-3495X, 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.
