EPYC 9135 vs Xeon D-1548

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon D-1548
2015
8 cores / 16 threads, 45 Watt
5.71
EPYC 9135
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 200 Watt
36.56
+540%

EPYC 9135 outperforms Xeon D-1548 by a whopping 540% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon D-1548 and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking114296
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.4329.27
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Dno data
Power efficiency12.0117.30
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Turin (2024)
Release date1 November 2015 (9 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$555$1,214

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9135 has 1105% better value for money than Xeon D-1548.

Detailed specifications

Xeon D-1548 and EPYC 9135 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads1632
Base clock speed2 GHz3.65 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Multiplier20no data
L1 cache64K (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache1.5 MB (per core)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die size246.24 mm22x 70.6 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)80 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,200 million16,630 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon D-1548 and EPYC 9135 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)2
SocketFCBGA1667SP5
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon D-1548 and EPYC 9135. 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-1548 and EPYC 9135 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-1548 and EPYC 9135 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-1548 and EPYC 9135. 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 bandwidth38.397 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon D-1548 and EPYC 9135.

PCIe version2.0/3.05.0
PCI Express lanes24128
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-1548 5.71
EPYC 9135 36.56
+540%

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-1548 9075
EPYC 9135 58070
+540%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.71 36.56
Recency 1 November 2015 10 October 2024
Physical cores 8 16
Threads 16 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 200 Watt

Xeon D-1548 has 344.4% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 540.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon D-1548 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon D-1548 and EPYC 9135, 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-1548
Xeon D-1548
AMD EPYC 9135
EPYC 9135

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 Xeon D-1548 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9135 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon D-1548 or EPYC 9135, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.