EPYC 7303 vs Apple M4 Max (16 cores)
Aggregate performance score
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) outperforms EPYC 7303 by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 165 | 342 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 22.36 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Apple M4 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 29.33 | 13.03 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 5 September 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $604 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.51 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 8,300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303 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 | no data | 2 |
| Socket | no data | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303. 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 Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M4 40-core GPU | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.04 | 17.99 |
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 5 September 2023 |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 130 Watt |
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) has a 55.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 44.4% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7303, on the other hand, has 100% more threads.
The Apple M4 Max (16 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7303 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M4 Max (16 cores) is a notebook processor while EPYC 7303 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and EPYC 7303, 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.
