EPYC 9554P vs Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9554P outperforms Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 by a whopping 43469% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3294 | 9 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.39 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Pentium 4-M | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.50 | 18.33 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | no data | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $7,104 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | no data | 4 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 64 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 72 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 52,560 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P 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 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P. 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 Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.16 | 69.71 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 64 |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 360 Watt |
Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 has 1100% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9554P, on the other hand, has a 43468.8% higher aggregate performance score, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9554P is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9554P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7 and EPYC 9554P, 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.
