EPYC 4484PX vs Xeon W-2295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon W-2295
2019
18 cores / 36 threads, 165 Watt
19.35
EPYC 4484PX
2024
12 cores / 24 threads, 120 Watt
32.18
+66.3%

EPYC 4484PX outperforms Xeon W-2295 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking294126
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data47.67
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency11.1025.38
Architecture codenameno dataRaphael (2023−2024)
Release date1 October 2019 (5 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX 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 cores18 (Octadeca-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads3624
Base clock speed3 GHz4.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.8 GHz5.6 GHz
Bus rate8 GT/sno data
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data1 MB (per core)
L3 cache24.75 MB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm
Die sizeno data2x 71 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data47 °C
Number of transistorsno data17,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA2066AM5
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGX-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX 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 W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth93.85 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4828

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon W-2295 19.35
EPYC 4484PX 32.18
+66.3%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Xeon W-2295 30735
EPYC 4484PX 51115
+66.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.35 32.18
Recency 1 October 2019 21 May 2024
Physical cores 18 12
Threads 36 24
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 120 Watt

Xeon W-2295 has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

EPYC 4484PX, on the other hand, has a 66.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 37.5% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 4484PX is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W-2295 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-2295 and EPYC 4484PX, 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 W-2295
Xeon W-2295
AMD EPYC 4484PX
EPYC 4484PX

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.


4.5 31 vote

Rate Xeon W-2295 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate EPYC 4484PX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W-2295 or EPYC 4484PX, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.