EPYC 9655P vs Xeon W-3275M
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9655P outperforms Xeon W-3275M by a whopping 294% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W-3275M and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 201 | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.07 | 2.62 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon W | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.70 | 23.66 |
| Architecture codename | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,453 | $10,811 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W-3275M has 94% better value for money than EPYC 9655P.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W-3275M and EPYC 9655P 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 | 28 (Octacosa-Core) | 96 |
| Threads | 56 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 25 | no data |
| L1 cache | 1.75 MB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 28 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 38.5 MB | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 12x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 76 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 99,780 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W-3275M and EPYC 9655P 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA3647 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-3275M and EPYC 9655P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon W-3275M and EPYC 9655P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W-3275M and EPYC 9655P 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-3275M and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 6 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 140.8 GB/s | 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 W-3275M and EPYC 9655P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 64 | 128 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.35 | 100.00 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 28 | 96 |
| Threads | 56 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 400 Watt |
Xeon W-3275M has 95.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has a 294.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 242.9% more physical cores and 242.9% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9655P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W-3275M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-3275M and EPYC 9655P, 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.
