I feel like a broken record. If everything were about technical merits, the AMD EPYC 4005 “Grado” processor should take over almost all of the entry server market. That is simply because with the new six SKU stack, AMD is simply offering a lot more for the dollar. Indeed, this is one segment where we expect AMD to pick up share this year. In this article, we are going to show and explain why.
We also have a video for this one that you can find here:
As always, we suggest opening this in its own browser, tab, or window for the best viewing experience. A special thanks to ASRock Rack and AMD for the help on this one so we could have launch day figures for you. We have to say it is being sponsored.
Also, if you want to learn more about the market forces in the 2025 entry server market, we now have a Substack on that:
The AMD EPYC 4005 SKU Stack
With the AMD EPYC 4005 SKU stack, there are now only six parts. Two at 170W TDP for high-performance 16-core setups. Then there are four 65W SKUs designed for lower-power computing. In all cases, however, the clock speeds are at least 3.0GHz as base, and over 5.4GHz at their maximum boost levels.
The SKU that will make many salivate is the AMD EPYC 4585PX. That X stands for 3D V-Cache adding another 64MB of L3 cache to one of the CCDs for 128MB total.
Since these parts are based on the same base silicon platform as their Ryzen counterparts, it is easy to just say that EPYC is a rebranded Ryzen. We will get into that in a bit more detail, but even at the SKU level, Ryzen does not have a 16 core 65W AM5 Ryzen 9000 series part today as just one example of the differentiation. That 65W part allows low-power servers for low-power dedicated hosting and colocation.
In terms of pricing, the Intel Xeon E-2488 and Xeon 6369P are the top-of-stack competition at 8 cores and the same $606. With AMD you can pick between a similar 8-core SKU for closer to half the cost, or get twice as many cores for less either in higher or lower TDP. The only SKU that costs more than Intel’s entry Xeon flagships is the AMD EPYC 4585PX, the part with 3D V-Cache which is a different chip.
Something one of our team members mentioned, is that if you have applications that thrive on high cache per core, the AMD EPYC 4585PX is the Zen 5 option for higher cache per core in this generation as we do not have a Turin-X follow-up to Genoa-X in the EPYC 9000 line.
Let us next get to the chips.
A Look at the AMD EPYC 4005
The AMD EPYC 4005 series is going to look a lot like two other AMD product families. It is essentially a Zen 5 update to the Zen 4-based EPYC 4004 series in the AM5 socket, so those are going to look a lot alike. Also, these platforms will look quite a bit like the AMD Ryzen 9000 series since those are the sister Zen 5 parts.
The major changes in this generation are the update to the Zen 5 architecture with the full 512b AVX-512 data path. There is also an update to DDR5-5600 ECC UDIMM memory speeds. On a competitive note, the Intel Xeon E-2400/ Xeon 6300P series only scale to 8 cores, do not support AVX-512, and support only DDR5-4800 memory.
On the pre-brief call for this launch, and in our EPYC 4004 series content, we repeatedly heard folks ask for more I/O and more cores. The latter is interesting since this offers double the core count of the Xeon competition in this segment. Still, the answer if you want more is really that you go to a higher-end SKU. The AMD EPYC 7000, 8000, and 9000 series all offer more memory, more PCIe lanes, and more cores, while also having single-socket options. As much as I love having more memory and more PCIe lanes, AMD EPYC is now supporting four different sockets with increasing capabilities.
Another difference between the EPYC series, and the Ryzen series, aside from the obvious ones like having a 16-core 65W TDP SKU, is that AMD EPYC means we have validation work for server OSes like Ubuntu and Microsoft Windows Server. We also have the validation work to support ECC UDIMM memory. This is not just a certain motherboard manufacturer offers ECC that they are supporting themselves with a Ryzen part. This is the entire line supporting ECC memory from AMD to the OEM. AMD also has the RAIDXpert2 for Server which is the software RAID solution. This matters for some segments if you need to have RAID for Windows Server as an example. Some still add RAID cards, but every generation PCIe-based RAID controllers continue to lose share when we ask OEMs.
With that, we thought it might be worthwhile looking at a platform since that really helps understand what is going on here.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://www.servethehome.com/amd-epyc-4005-grado-is-great-and-intel-is-exposed/&media=https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AMD-EPYC-4565P-Grado-Front.jpg&description=With Zen 5 the AMD EPYC 4005 "Grado" effectively doubles what Intel Xeon offers in the entry server market now with a 16 core 65W TDP option){kind=link}
Without a chipset unlike the Supermicro H13SAE-MF, I’m curious about the idle power consumption of this board. This could be a gem for us who are in Europe.
I know that it is just nitpicking and that I really shouldn’t expect a consistent naming scheme from any company at this point, but I really wish that they had just called the v-cache model 4585PX3D, just like the desktop counterparts. Or would that be too straightforward?
Any idea when these will be available in retail? What was the announcement-to-Newegg-availability lag with the 4004 announcement?
Oh, I can answer my own question: Newegg says release on June 13.
Second that. Any data on the idle power consumption of this platform would be apreciated.
Geir and Kawaii, I will try to get ahold of one of these boards and test power consumption!
Would these be suitable for building an M.2 Gen 5×2 SSD only NAS? How many PCIe-lanes can I typically coulnt being available for storage?
When the title said: “Intel is exposed” I thought this would have a bit about: “TRAINING SOLO – On the Limitations of Domain Isolation Against Spectre-v2 Attacks” and a comparison between the two CPUs and the number of microcode patches in-the-wind; and the resulting performance loss.
You sound like a broken record good Patrick, but you’re right. AMD wins. Intel’s savior is that it takes so long for Dell and HPE to make new models and neither care about this space compared to AI systems because it takes hundreds of these little servers to earn the revenue of a HGX. If Dell and HPE don’t sell, then Intel wins
@Rob
There’s another Intel vulnerability this cycle discovered by ETH Zurich with a performance penalty – CVE-2024-45332. AMD is not affected.
Crucial needs to start making 64GB ECC UDIMMs at a tolerable price premium stat. 256GB kits anyone? Put a logo on the packaging along the lines of “AMD EPYC 4000 series ready”.
I just have to shake my head every time I think about how incompetent Intel has been in the high end consumer / entry level server market, an area they once dominated. It’s been obvious for years that the heterogeneous laptop architecture and endless artificial product segmentation by the marketing groups was absolutely killing them. These two things led them to constantly be late to market with the wrong product. Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic at this point. I know this is a relatively small market, but the fact Pat never flushed the management in these groups is to me one of the many reasons he had to go. Other than the random annoying model numbers, AMD executing perfectly here.
Can anyone confirm if these new chips drop in compatible with any existing motherboard series ?
I’m curious how much of the Xeon E situation is down to heterogeneity in desktop parts making it genuinely more laborious to keep the Xeon Es up to date, since they have to either be distinct parts or leave a lot of disabled ‘E’ cores on the table; and how much is margin-driven and cannibalization-averse SKU slicing.
AMD presumably has an easier time making an Epyc 4005, since it’s pretty close to a Ryzen with some amount of binning and validation, rather than a distinct P-core only monolithic chip that is not borrowed directly from any Core Ultra; but (going by the benchmarking of non-X3D Zen5 Ryzen vs. current Intel desktop P-cores) it seems as though a P-core part of similar core count absolutely wouldn’t suck, unless your application really needs a 4585PX in which case the results aren’t going to be even close.(Maybe the Xeon Max HBM stuff, in small quantities, could actually be done at an acceptable price; but no sign of them trying that at present)
However, Intel can’t be thrilled at the idea that Xeon E basically needs to do twice as much work to be worth the money they currently want for it; especially if there are Xeon Ds or bottom-tier Xeon Scalables that are ‘supposed’ to fill those niches at their (higher) prices.
Between their current P-cores being at least reasonably credible vs. current Zen5; and them having the option to throw some of the networking features of Xeon D into Xeon E(or, if they want a fast solution; slapping a Xeon D into an LGA package); it seems like Intel absolutely could have a Xeon E that is actually worth buying; I’m just much less clear that they would want to sell one, especially if they can still use OEM loyalty to shift Xeon Es to customers for which if it can’t be purchased from Dell or HPE it doesn’t exist.
@fuzzyfuzzyfungus:
I think it comes down to Intel’s inability to produce their smaller designs themselves. They can’t source enough chiplets from TSMC to even satisfy huge OEM’s desktop needs. There’s still no Dell OptiPlex or Inspiron based on Arrow Lake despite the platform being from 2024. Even their newest Dell Tower line still carries older Raptor Lake with Arrow Lake being available only for the highest SKUs. Same for HP.
Before Arrow Lake released Intel has planned to manufacture the CPU chiplets themselves on A20 process, then only to make lower end themselves, but finally everything is made by TSMC and the A20 process was abandoned.
The entire platform for Arrow Lake had problems since Meteor Lake-S was supposed to be the first CPU on LGA-1851, but it too was so bad the entire line got canceled and repurposed for embedded only Meteor Lake-PS.
@fuzzyfuzzyfungus:
I agree with you that one approach could be to make a cut a down Granite Rapids-D. They have plenty of options to make a competitive product. That’s why it’s completely baffling to me why they decided to base Xeon E/W and consumer desktop off their laptop architectures. As the article pointed out, the inclusion of E cores created other problems like the P cores losing AVX-512 support, something Intel pioneered! They desperately need an entry level P core-only design to cover 4-16 cores, whether monolithic or chiplets. And it needs to have all the features that the E core team forced them to remove, or the marketing teams tried to segment into a ridiculous number of derivative SKU’s (AVX-512, FP16, etc).
Asus B650 Tuf Gaming Plus (Wifi) e.g. lists them already officially as supported (also Epyc 4004 series).
Quite a good board series. With current bios and proper bios-setting, it runs also pcie gen5 on the x16 GPU slot. I got one new for 120 Euro (incl. Tax)
Btw, with this Board an a a reasonable good power supply (e.g. Corsair RMx), you can get Idle as low as ~14-15W with a 9700X at Windows (total system power draw in 230V-Land, i have such a system) if you have no extra PCIe cards in and use iGPU only.
I’d guess, Eypc 4005 will be the same.
Zen5 Desktop paired with selected hardware can idle quite low. :-)
Trying to find a good motherboard capable of 2xM.2 and a PCI x8 slot with lanes to the CPU (not chipset).
I am mirroring my M.2 drives, and I have a HBA card for my spinning disks.
I’m surprised that it is impossible to find a motherboard instock/available!
I’m also interested in the minimum/average power watts. I don’t want to receive an unexpected noticeably higher power bill for a home server.
@praka
You can find 2x m.2(one each side)card with 8x pass through slot on top. Low enough to get low profile HBA card on top in normal case.
You bifurcate pci-e x16 slot to 8x4x4 and you’re done. I’m running my Nas this way for 4th year now. The 4x slot takes 10g NIC and 1x slot takes GPU(used for transcoding so no bandwidth needed)
Unless you’re talking intel, then bifurcation on non platinium xeons i not for you.
Btw 4lane pcie 3.0 is enough for 8 sata drives, and most HBAs are happy with that.
I am probably an outlier here, but I would still love to see more PCIe and quad channel memory (192 – 256GB at DDR5 5600 for up to ~179GB/sec). The 16-core is a bit memory bandwidth starved in certain scenarios. 16-cores is the sweet spot for our use case, so it’s not a limit for us to justify a jump to a 8004, or 9004/5 series CPU. It would just be beneficial to run 8-12 NVMe (32-48 PCIe lanes) + 8-16 PCIe for NIC’s. That would require a platform to offer 64+ PCIe lanes (need lanes for ancillary stuff like BMC, etc.). Just personal experience, but this would be a killer edge / SMB server for most.