Xeon Platinum 8454H vs EPYC 7453

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7453
2021
28 cores / 56 threads, 225 Watt
32.80
Xeon Platinum 8454H
2023
32 cores / 64 threads, 270 Watt
40.43
+23.3%

Xeon Platinum 8454H outperforms EPYC 7453 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking12167
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.7210.33
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Architecture codenameMilan (2021−2023)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date15 March 2021 (3 years ago)10 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,570$6,540

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7453 has 72% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8454H.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H 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 cores28 (Octacosa-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads5664
Base clock speed2.75 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.45 GHz3.4 GHz
Multiplier27.5no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)82.5 MB
Chip lithography7 nm+Intel 7 nm
Die size4x 81 mm24x 477 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data71 °C
Number of transistors16,600 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H 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 configuration28
SocketSP3FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt270 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Statusno dataLaunched
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR5-4800, DDR5-4400
Maximum memory size4 TiB4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidth204.795 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H.

PCIe version4.05.0
PCI Express lanes12880

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.

EPYC 7453 32.80
Xeon Platinum 8454H 40.43
+23.3%

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.

EPYC 7453 50575
Xeon Platinum 8454H 62347
+23.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.80 40.43
Recency 15 March 2021 10 January 2023
Physical cores 28 32
Threads 56 64
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 270 Watt

EPYC 7453 has 20% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8454H, on the other hand, has a 23.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 14.3% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads.

The Xeon Platinum 8454H is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7453 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7453 and Xeon Platinum 8454H, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7453
EPYC 7453
Intel Xeon Platinum 8454H
Xeon Platinum 8454H

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 7453 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8454H on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7453 or Xeon Platinum 8454H, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.