EPYC 9355P vs Xeon Gold 6162
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 July 2018 (6 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,998 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 3.55 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 33 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P 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 | FCLGA3647 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 768 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 6 | 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 Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 48 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 July 2018 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 32 |
| Threads | 48 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 280 Watt |
Xeon Gold 6162 has 86.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9355P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6162 and EPYC 9355P, 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.
