Apple M4 (8 cores) vs EPYC 7351
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores) processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 487 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.25 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | Apple M4 |
| Power efficiency | 8.14 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 28 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,100 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores) 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Multiplier | 24 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores) 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | TR4 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores). You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores) are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores). Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Apple M4 8-core GPU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores).
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 28 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 8 |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 5 Watt |
EPYC 7351 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Apple M4 (8 cores), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 3300% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores). We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC 7351 is a server/workstation processor while Apple M4 (8 cores) is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7351 and Apple M4 (8 cores), 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.
