EPYC 9845 vs Xeon 6766E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerServer
Architecture codenameSierra Forest (2024)Turin (2024)
Release date3 June 2024 (less than a year ago)10 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)$10,257$13,564

Detailed specifications

Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845 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 cores144160
Threads144320
Base clock speed1.9 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache96 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB (per module)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache108 MB (shared)320 MB (shared)
Chip lithography5 nm3 nm
Maximum case temperature (TCase)84 °Cno data
64 bit support++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845 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 configuration22
Socket4710SP5
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt390 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
TSX+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845 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 Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes88128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 June 2024 10 October 2024
Physical cores 144 160
Threads 144 320
Chip lithography 5 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 390 Watt

Xeon 6766E has 56% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9845, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, 11.1% more physical cores and 122.2% more threads, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 6766E and EPYC 9845, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon 6766E
Xeon 6766E
AMD EPYC 9845
EPYC 9845

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


5 1 vote

Rate Xeon 6766E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9845 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon 6766E or EPYC 9845, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.