Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) vs EPYC 9655P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9655P outperforms Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) by a whopping 257% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1 | 167 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.62 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Apple M4 |
| Power efficiency | 23.66 | 82.78 |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | no data |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $10,811 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 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 | 96 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.592 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 4.51 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 12x 70.6 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 99,780 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | SP5 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 32 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 cores). You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 cores). Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Apple M4 16-core GPU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 cores).
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 100.00 | 27.99 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 12 |
| Threads | 192 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 32 Watt |
EPYC 9655P has a 257.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores), on the other hand, has a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1150% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9655P is our recommended choice as it beats the Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9655P is a server/workstation processor while Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9655P and Apple M4 Pro (12 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.
