What To Know
- For example, in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the EPYC 9654 achieves a score of 58,000, while the M2 Ultra scores around 36,000.
- The AMD EPYC 9654 is priced significantly lower than the M2 Ultra, making it a more cost-effective option for data-intensive computing.
- The EPYC 9654’s higher core count and larger cache size make it a better choice for video editing and rendering.
In the realm of high-performance computing, the battle between AMD’s EPYC 9654 and Apple’s M2 Ultra rages on. Both processors boast impressive capabilities, but which one reigns supreme for data-intensive workloads? This in-depth comparison will delve into the specifications, performance, and value proposition of these two computing powerhouses.
Specifications: A Detailed Comparison
| Feature | AMD EPYC 9654 | Apple M2 Ultra |
| — | — | — |
| Cores | 128 | 20 |
| Threads | 256 | 40 |
| Base Clock Speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.49 GHz |
| Boost Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Cache Size | 384 MB | 128 MB |
| Memory Support | DDR5-4800 | LPDDR5-6400 |
| Memory Channels | 8 | 8 |
| Memory Capacity | 2 TB | 128 GB |
| TDP | 320 W | 150 W |
Performance: Benchmarking and Real-World Tests
Benchmark Tests:
In benchmark tests, the AMD EPYC 9654 consistently outperforms the M2 Ultra in multi-threaded workloads. For example, in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the EPYC 9654 achieves a score of 58,000, while the M2 Ultra scores around 36,000.
Real-World Tests:
In real-world applications, the EPYC 9654’s higher core count and larger cache size provide significant advantages for data-intensive tasks. For example, in video editing and rendering, the EPYC 9654 can process large video files much faster than the M2 Ultra.
Value Proposition: Price and Efficiency
The AMD EPYC 9654 is priced significantly lower than the M2 Ultra, making it a more cost-effective option for data-intensive computing. Additionally, the EPYC 9654’s higher TDP allows it to sustain higher performance levels for longer periods of time, resulting in greater efficiency.
Use Cases: Where They Excel
AMD EPYC 9654:
- High-performance computing (HPC)
- Cloud computing
- Data analytics
- Machine learning
- Virtualization
Apple M2 Ultra:
- Content creation (video editing, graphic design)
- CAD and engineering applications
- Software development
- Web hosting
Advantages and Disadvantages
AMD EPYC 9654:
Advantages:
- Higher core count and thread count
- Larger cache size
- Lower price
- Greater efficiency
Disadvantages:
- Higher power consumption
- Not as portable as the M2 Ultra
Apple M2 Ultra:
Advantages:
- Higher clock speeds
- Lower power consumption
- More portable
- Better integrated graphics
Disadvantages:
- Lower core count and thread count
- Smaller cache size
- Higher price
Key Points: The Ideal Choice for Data-Intensive Workloads
For data-intensive workloads that require high core counts, large cache sizes, and cost-effectiveness, the AMD EPYC 9654 is the clear choice. Its superior performance and value proposition make it an ideal solution for HPC, cloud computing, and other demanding applications.
Frequently Discussed Topics
Q: Which processor is better for gaming?
A: The M2 Ultra offers better gaming performance due to its higher clock speeds and integrated graphics.
Q: Which processor is more energy-efficient?
A: The M2 Ultra has a lower TDP, making it more energy-efficient than the EPYC 9654.
Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?
A: The M2 Ultra has a higher base and boost clock speed, resulting in better single-core performance.
Q: Which processor is better for video editing?
A: The EPYC 9654’s higher core count and larger cache size make it a better choice for video editing and rendering.
Q: Which processor is better for machine learning?
A: The EPYC 9654’s higher core count and larger cache size provide better performance for machine learning workloads.
