EPYC 9555 vs Xeon Max 9462
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9555 outperforms Xeon Max 9462 by a whopping 203% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 284 | 14 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.34 | 2.69 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 8.92 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 10 January 2023 (3 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,995 | $9,826 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9555 has 101% better value for money than Xeon Max 9462.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Xeon Max 9462 and EPYC 9555: 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 75 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 4x 477 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 77 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Max 9462 and EPYC 9555 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 | 2 | 2 |
| Socket | 4677 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Max 9462 and EPYC 9555. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon Max 9462 and EPYC 9555 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Max 9462 and EPYC 9555 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 Xeon Max 9462 and EPYC 9555. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800 | 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 Xeon Max 9462 and EPYC 9555.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 80 | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.83 | 78.29 |
| Recency | 10 January 2023 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 64 |
| Threads | 64 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 360 Watt |
Xeon Max 9462 has 3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9555, on the other hand, has a 203% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9555 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon Max 9462 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
