Xeon w7-3455 vs EPYC 9654
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9654 outperforms Xeon w7-3455 by a whopping 106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9654 and Xeon w7-3455 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 6 | 92 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.29 | 41.73 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.88 | 12.88 |
| Architecture codename | Genoa (2022−2023) | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) | 15 February 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,805 | $2,489 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon w7-3455 has 3135% better value for money than EPYC 9654.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9654 and Xeon w7-3455 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 | 96 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | 24 | no data |
| L1 cache | 6 MB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 96 MB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | 67.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm, 6 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 12x 72 mm2 | 4x 477 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 78,840 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9654 and Xeon w7-3455 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 270 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9654 and Xeon w7-3455. 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 9654 and Xeon w7-3455 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 9654 and Xeon w7-3455 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 9654 and Xeon w7-3455. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | 6 TiB | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 460.8 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 9654 and Xeon w7-3455.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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 | 75.94 | 36.90 |
| Recency | 10 November 2022 | 15 February 2023 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 24 |
| Threads | 192 | 48 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 270 Watt |
EPYC 9654 has a 105.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Xeon w7-3455, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, and 33.3% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon w7-3455 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9654 and Xeon w7-3455, 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.
