EPYC 4464P vs Xeon 6517P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 4464P

12 Cores24 Thrd105 WWMax: 5.4 GHz2024

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon 6517P

16 Cores32 Thrd190 WWMax: 4.2 GHz2025

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon 6517P Performance Spectrum

EPYC 4464P

12 / 24

47,185

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon 6517P

16 / 32

48,810

+3.4%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon 6517P FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon 6517P: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

EPYC 4464P

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $766 less on MSRP ($429 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Delivers 169.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 110.0 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($429 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Draws 105W instead of 190W, a 85W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon Graphics, while Xeon 6517P needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (47,185 vs 48,810).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 72 MB).

Xeon 6517P

2025

Why buy it

✅+3.4% higher PassMark.
✅+125% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 32 MB).
✅214.3% more PCIe lanes (88 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4464P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 110.0 PassMark/$ ($1,195 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).
❌81% higher power demand at 190W vs 105W.
❌No integrated graphics, while EPYC 4464P can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 4464P better than Xeon 6517P?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, EPYC 4464P is ahead with a 13.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6517P pulls ahead with 3.4% better PassMark. Xeon 6517P also has the bigger cache pool with 125% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 32 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6517P is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.4% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 125% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 32 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 4464P is the better buy right now. EPYC 4464P comes in $766 cheaper on MSRP at $429 MSRP versus $1,195 MSRP, and it still gives you a 13.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon 6517P is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 3.4% better PassMark. It is also 169.3% better value on MSRP (110.0 vs 40.8 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon 6517P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024), 125% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 32 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 12/24. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon 6517P Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

EPYC 4464P

The EPYC 4464P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 May 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 47,185 points. Launch price was $399.

Xeon 6517P

The Xeon 6517P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 72 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 190 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 48,810 points. Launch price was $1,195.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 4464P packs 12 cores / 24 threads, while the Xeon 6517P offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon 6517P has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the EPYC 4464P versus 4.2 GHz on the Xeon 6517P — a 25% clock advantage for the EPYC 4464P (base: 3.7 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The EPYC 4464P uses the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon 6517P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 4464P scores 47,185 against the Xeon 6517P's 48,810 — a 3.4% lead for the Xeon 6517P. L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 4464P vs 72 MB (total) on the Xeon 6517P.

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon 6517P
Cores / Threads	12 / 24	16 / 32+33%
Boost Clock	5.4 GHz+29%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+16%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB (total)	72 MB (total)+125%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	5 nm	Intel 3 nm-40%
Architecture	Raphael (2023−2025)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	47,185	48,810+3%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 4464P uses the AM5 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon 6517P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 5200 on the EPYC 4464P versus 6400 on the Xeon 6517P — the Xeon 6517P supports 23.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon 6517P supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (EPYC 4464P) vs 8 (Xeon 6517P). PCIe lanes: 28 (EPYC 4464P) vs 88 (Xeon 6517P) — the Xeon 6517P offers 60 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AM5,FL1 (EPYC 4464P) and Granite Rapids-SP (Xeon 6517P).

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon 6517P
Socket	AM5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	5200	6400+23%
Max RAM Capacity	128	4096+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	28	88+214%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the EPYC 4464P has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 4464P) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6517P). The EPYC 4464P includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon Graphics), while the Xeon 6517P requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 4464P rivals Core i9-13900; Xeon 6517P rivals EPYC 9554.

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon 6517P
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	AMD Radeon Graphics	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 4464P was priced at $429, while the Xeon 6517P came in at $1195. On launch pricing ($429 vs $1195), EPYC 4464P was $766 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 4464P delivers 110.0 pts/$ vs 40.8 pts/$ for the Xeon 6517P — making the EPYC 4464P the 91.7% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon 6517P
MSRP	$429-64%	$1195
Performance per Dollar	110.0+170%	40.8
Release Date	2024	2025

Search EPYC 4464P on Amazon

Search Xeon 6517P on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.