EPYC 9825 vs Xeon D-2739NT
Primary details
Comparing Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 January 2022 (2 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $13,006 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825 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) | 144 |
| Threads | 16 | 288 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 15 MB | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825 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 | 2 |
| Socket | FCBGA2579 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 97 Watt | 390 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® SPS | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825 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 D-2739NT and EPYC 9825. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 1 TB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 32 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2022 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 144 |
| Threads | 16 | 288 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 97 Watt | 390 Watt |
Xeon D-2739NT has 302.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9825, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, 1700% more physical cores and 1700% more threads, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon D-2739NT is a mobile workstation processor while EPYC 9825 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon D-2739NT and EPYC 9825, 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.
