EPYC 9755 vs VIA Nano X2 U4025
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9755 outperforms VIA Nano X2 U4025 by a whopping 41265% 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 | 3371 | 2 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.12 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.74 | 8.00 |
| Designer | VIA | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | CNC (2011) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | January 2011 (14 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $12,984 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
VIA Nano X2 U4025 and EPYC 9755 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 128 |
| Threads | 2 | 256 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 512 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 66 mm2 | 16x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 188 million | 133,040 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on VIA Nano X2 U4025 and EPYC 9755 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | VIA nanoBGA2 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13 Watt | 500 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by VIA Nano X2 U4025 and EPYC 9755. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by VIA Nano X2 U4025 and EPYC 9755 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by VIA Nano X2 U4025 and EPYC 9755. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by VIA Nano X2 U4025 and EPYC 9755.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
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 | 0.23 | 95.14 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 128 |
| Threads | 2 | 256 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13 Watt | 500 Watt |
VIA Nano X2 U4025 has 3746.2% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9755, on the other hand, has a 41265.2% higher aggregate performance score, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9755 is our recommended choice as it beats the VIA Nano X2 U4025 in performance tests.
Be aware that VIA Nano X2 U4025 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9755 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
