EPYC 9275F vs Xeon Platinum 8480+
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F 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 | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 10 January 2023 (1 year ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $10,710 | $3,439 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F 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 | 56 (Hexapentaconta-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 112 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 105 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 4x 477 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 79 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F 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 | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F. 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 Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F 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 Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F. 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 Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 80 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 January 2023 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 56 | 24 |
| Threads | 112 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 320 Watt |
Xeon Platinum 8480+ has 133.3% more physical cores and 133.3% more threads.
EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 9.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8480+ and EPYC 9275F, 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.
