EPYC Embedded 3255 vs Apple M4 Pro (12 cores)
Primary details
Comparing Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 167 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Apple M4 | AMD EPYC Embedded |
| Power efficiency | 82.29 | no data |
| Architecture codename | no data | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.592 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.51 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 25 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255 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 | 1 |
| Socket | no data | AMD BGA SP4r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M4 16-core GPU | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 32 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 21 February 2018 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 55 Watt |
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) has an age advantage of 6 years, 50% more physical cores, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 71.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC Embedded 3255, on the other hand, has 33.3% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) is a desktop processor while EPYC Embedded 3255 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and EPYC Embedded 3255, 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.
