EPYC 9015 vs Xeon 6952P

VS

Primary details

Comparing Xeon 6952P and EPYC 9015 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 codenameGranite Rapids (2024)Turin (2024)
Release date24 September 2024 (less than a year ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$527

Detailed specifications

Xeon 6952P and EPYC 9015 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 cores968 (Octa-Core)
Threads19216
Base clock speed2.1 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz4.1 GHz
L1 cache112 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache480 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography5 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data2x 70.6 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data16,630 million
64 bit support++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon 6952P and EPYC 9015 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
Socket7529SP5
Power consumption (TDP)400 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 6952P and EPYC 9015. 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 6952P and EPYC 9015 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 6952P and EPYC 9015 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 6952P and EPYC 9015. 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 6952P and EPYC 9015.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes96128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 96 8
Threads 192 16
Chip lithography 5 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 400 Watt 125 Watt

Xeon 6952P has 1100% more physical cores and 1100% more threads.

EPYC 9015, on the other hand, has a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 220% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Xeon 6952P and EPYC 9015. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 6952P and EPYC 9015, 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 6952P
Xeon 6952P
AMD EPYC 9015
EPYC 9015

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon 6952P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate EPYC 9015 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon 6952P or EPYC 9015, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.