EPYC 4364P vs Xeon Silver 4112

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Silver 4112
2017
4 cores / 8 threads, 85 Watt
4.21
EPYC 4364P
2024
8 cores / 16 threads, 105 Watt
23.60
+461%

EPYC 4364P outperforms Xeon Silver 4112 by a whopping 461% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1399227
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.2844.11
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Silverno data
Power efficiency4.5220.50
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date11 July 2017 (7 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$473$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 4364P has 1245% better value for money than Xeon Silver 4112.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed2.6 GHz4.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz5.4 GHz
Multiplier26no data
L1 cache256 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache8.25 MB32 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm
Die sizeno data71 mm2
Maximum core temperature76 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data61 °C
Number of transistorsno data6,570 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA3647AM5
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P. 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+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P 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 Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P 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 Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR5
Maximum memory size768 GBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth115.212 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4828

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 Silver 4112 4.21
EPYC 4364P 23.60
+461%

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 Silver 4112 6446
EPYC 4364P 36124
+460%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.21 23.60
Recency 11 July 2017 21 May 2024
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 105 Watt

Xeon Silver 4112 has 23.5% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4364P, on the other hand, has a 460.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 4364P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Silver 4112 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Silver 4112 and EPYC 4364P, 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 Silver 4112
Xeon Silver 4112
AMD EPYC 4364P
EPYC 4364P

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.


4.2 5 votes

Rate Xeon Silver 4112 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 4364P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Silver 4112 or EPYC 4364P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.