EPYC 7443P vs Xeon Platinum 8160M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8160M
2017
24 cores / 48 threads, 150 Watt
34.37
EPYC 7443P
2021
24 cores / 48 threads, 200 Watt
36.99
+7.6%

EPYC 7443P outperforms Xeon Platinum 8160M by a small 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking9782
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.0016.99
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumAMD EPYC
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Milan (2021)
Release date25 April 2017 (7 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$7,704$1,337
Current price$397 (0.1x MSRP)$2206 (1.6x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Platinum 8160M has 489% better value for money than EPYC 7443P.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads4848
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.85 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz4 GHz
L1 cache1.5 MB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache24 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache33 MB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm+
Die sizeno data4x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature85 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data16,600 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P 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 configuration8 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA3647SP3
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
StatusLaunchedno data

Security technologies

Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size1.5 TB4 TiB
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth128.001 GB/s204.795 GB/s
ECC memory support+no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes48128

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 Platinum 8160M 34.37
EPYC 7443P 36.99
+7.6%

EPYC 7443P outperforms Xeon Platinum 8160M by 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Xeon Platinum 8160M 53158
EPYC 7443P 57215
+7.6%

EPYC 7443P outperforms Xeon Platinum 8160M by 8% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.37 36.99
Recency 25 April 2017 15 March 2021
Cost $7704 $1337
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 200 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8160M and EPYC 7443P, 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 Platinum 8160M
Xeon Platinum 8160M
AMD EPYC 7443P
EPYC 7443P

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.


3.3 20 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8160M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 25 votes

Rate EPYC 7443P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8160M or EPYC 7443P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.