EPYC 9455 vs Xeon Platinum 8321HC
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455 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 | Server | Server |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 October 2020 (4 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $5,412 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455 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 | 26 (Hexacosa-Core) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 52 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.15 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 35.75 MB | 192 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | no data | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 6x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 49,890 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455 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 | no data | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 88 Watt | 300 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | RDIMM | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 1.12 TB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 6 | no data |
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 Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 48 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 October 2020 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 26 | 48 |
| Threads | 52 | 96 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 88 Watt | 300 Watt |
Xeon Platinum 8321HC has 240.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9455, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and 84.6% more physical cores and 84.6% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8321HC and EPYC 9455, 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.
