Xeon 6710E vs EPYC 9474F
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 10 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.26 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.38 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Genoa (2022−2023) | Sierra Forest (2024) |
| Release date | 10 November 2022 (1 year ago) | 3 June 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $6,780 | $2,749 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E 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 | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 96 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | 36 | no data |
| L1 cache | 3 MB | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 48 MB | 4 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 96 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm, 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 8x 72 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 52,560 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E 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 | 2 |
| Socket | SP5 | 4710 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 6 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 88 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 November 2022 | 3 June 2024 |
| Physical cores | 48 | 64 |
| Threads | 96 | 64 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 205 Watt |
EPYC 9474F has 50% more threads.
Xeon 6710E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, 33.3% more physical cores, and 75.6% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9474F and Xeon 6710E, 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.
