EPYC 9654 vs Xeon Platinum 8352V
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.01 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Ice Lake-SP (2021) | Genoa |
| Release date | 6 April 2021 (3 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $11,805 |
| Current price | $3185 | $6337 (0.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654 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 | 36 | 96 |
| Threads | 72 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 6 MB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 96 MB |
| L3 cache | 54 MB (shared) | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 78 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654 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 | 2 | 2 |
| Socket | 4189 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 64 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 April 2021 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 36 | 96 |
| Threads | 72 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 360 Watt |
Xeon Platinum 8352V has 84.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, 166.7% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8352V and EPYC 9654, 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.
