Apple M4 Max (14 cores) vs EPYC 7302
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores) processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 266 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.58 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | Apple M4 |
| Power efficiency | 12.66 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | no data |
| Release date | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) | 30 November 2024 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $978 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores) 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) | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 14 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 4.51 GHz |
| Multiplier | 30 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores) 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 (Multiprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | TR4 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores). 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 EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores) are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores). Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Apple M4 32-core GPU |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 7 August 2019 | 30 November 2024 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 14 |
| Threads | 32 | 14 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 80 Watt |
EPYC 7302 has 14.3% more physical cores and 128.6% more threads.
Apple M4 Max (14 cores), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 93.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores). We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC 7302 is a server/workstation processor while Apple M4 Max (14 cores) is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7302 and Apple M4 Max (14 cores), 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.
