EPYC 4484PX vs Xeon D-1527

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon D-1527
2015
4 cores / 8 threads, 35 Watt
3.41
EPYC 4484PX
2024
12 cores / 24 threads, 120 Watt
33.40
+879%

EPYC 4484PX outperforms Xeon D-1527 by a whopping 879% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1578125
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.9048.09
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Dno data
Power efficiency8.8825.38
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date1 November 2015 (9 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$213$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 4484PX has 2431% better value for money than Xeon D-1527.

Detailed specifications

Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads824
Base clock speed2.2 GHz4.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz5.6 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache256 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache6 MB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm
Die size246.24 mm22x 71 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)80 °C47 °C
Number of transistors3200 Million17,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1667AM5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
GPIO+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX 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 Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4, DDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth34.124 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX.

PCIe version2.0/3.05.0
PCI Express lanes2428
USB revision2.0/3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports6no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN+no data
UART+no data

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.

Xeon D-1527 3.41
EPYC 4484PX 33.40
+879%

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.

Xeon D-1527 5213
EPYC 4484PX 51115
+881%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.41 33.40
Recency 1 November 2015 21 May 2024
Physical cores 4 12
Threads 8 24
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 120 Watt

Xeon D-1527 has 242.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4484PX, on the other hand, has a 879.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 4484PX is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon D-1527 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon D-1527 and EPYC 4484PX, 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.


Intel Xeon D-1527
Xeon D-1527
AMD EPYC 4484PX
EPYC 4484PX

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.


3.8 9 votes

Rate Xeon D-1527 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 1 vote

Rate EPYC 4484PX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon D-1527 or EPYC 4484PX, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.