EPYC 4464P vs EPYC Embedded 3251
Primary details
Comparing EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 132 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 69.74 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC Embedded | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 27.53 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Raphael (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 21 May 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $315 | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| Multiplier | 25 | no data |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 2x 71 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4800 Million | 13,140 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | TR4 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P. 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 Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 512 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 28 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 21 May 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 12 |
| Threads | 16 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 105 Watt |
EPYC Embedded 3251 has 90.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 4464P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC Embedded 3251 and EPYC 4464P, 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.
