EPYC 9655P vs Itanium 9330
Primary details
Comparing Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.42 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 23.22 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $10,811 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 96 |
| Threads | 8 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 1.46 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB L3 Cache | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 12x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 99,780 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1248 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 50 Bit | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2010 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 96 |
| Threads | 8 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 400 Watt |
Itanium 9330 has 158.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, 2300% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Itanium 9330 and EPYC 9655P, 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.
