Summary
Creating websites and apps is an exciting, creative endeavor. However, managing services across Netlify (websites), shinyapps.io (R apps), GitHub (static sites), and Digital Ocean (websites) has led to “service sprawl,” becoming both expensive and confusing. A home server offers a streamlined solution. This post will explore Intel and AMD’s entry-level CPU lineups to help determine the best processor for this purpose. The AMD EPYC series 4004 4564P offers outstanding power at a bargain price for a home server.Table of Contents
Introduction
Intel and AMD offer selections in the entry-level server marker. For AMD it is the EPYC series, while Intel has the Xeon E. The entry-level server market is particularly relevant for home servers, where cost and power efficiency are often more important than raw performance. This post will compare the entry-level offerings of both vendors to determine which provides the best value for home server applications.
Chip Comparisons
AMD
The AMD EPYC series is AMD’s flagship line of server processors. Built on AMD’s “Zen” microarchitecture, EPYC processors are characterized by their multi-chip module (MCM) or chiplet design, allowing for high core counts, extensive memory bandwidth with multiple DDR5 memory channels, and a large number of PCIe Gen 5 lanes for robust I/O. AMD EPYC processors are segmented into several series, each designed to target specific market segments. The series begin at 4000 (entry-level) and end at 9000 (high-performance, ai) with each increment a step up in both cost and performance.
Intel
Intel’s entry-level server offerings include the Xeon E. These processors are designed for smaller servers and workstations, providing a good balance of performance, reliability, and essential features for everyday business needs. They are often a cost-effective choice for tasks like basic web hosting, file sharing, and lightweight applications, offering features like error-correcting memory (ECC) for data integrity.
Competition
The competition between AMD’s EPYC and Intel’s Xeon lineups in the server market has been intense in recent years, with AMD making significant inroads into Intel’s long-standing dominance. AMD’s recent success can largely be attributed to its “Zen” microarchitecture, which allowed EPYC processors to offer higher core counts and more memory channels, compared to Intel’s offerings.
AMD has captured significant market share as a result of its recent offerings. After decades of Intel holding a near-monopoly in the server CPU market, AMD’s EPYC processors have steadily gained ground. According to Notebookcheck.net, “Currently (June 2025), AMD holds about 33% of the server CPU market, and that number continues to grow. In contrast, Intel’s share has dropped to around 62%.” This represents a dramatic shift from 2017 when AMD and ARM processors were virtually nonexistent in the server space.
Specifications
The table below shows the 22 different chips. AMD offers 14 chips in the EPYC version, while Intel offers 8. Crucial to an evaluation of CPU specifications are performance and energy usage.
Performance
Passmark performance scores are the industry standard at evaluating CPUs and allow for direct comparisons. The PassMark Performance Test score is created and managed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd, an Australian company specializing in computer benchmarking solutions. You can visit benchmark.net for CPU scores. A higher number means a faster computer.
Energy Usage
Thermal Design Power (TDP) is a measure of the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component that the cooling system is required to dissipate under any workload. It is often used as a proxy for power consumption, although it does not directly measure power usage. TDP is typically expressed in watts (W) and is an important specification for server CPUs, as it affects both cooling requirements and overall energy efficiency. Chips with high TDP often require more robust (and often louder/more expensive) cooling solutions and draw more power.
Analysis
The performance score took the Passmark performance score relative to the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and normalized it to a scale of 0 to 100. The power efficiency score is the thermal design power (TDP) in watts relative to the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), also normalized to a scale of 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the value.
Figure 1: Comparison of entry level server CPUs of Intel. The AMD EPYC chips are a superior value when evaluating performance and cost relative to Intel’s offerings. Several Intel chips did not have a Passmark performance score.
AMD EPYC Series
The plot below shows a vanilla price-to-performance plot for the series 4004 and 4005 AMD EPYC chips. Notice that when looking at just the manufactured suggested retail price (MSRP) and the Passmark performance score, there’s a nice nearly linear relationship. More money means more performance. And the series 4005 chips are generally more expensive than the series 4004 chips, but they also offer slightly higher performance. Originally, I chose the 4345P chip and configured a build around its power consumption of 65W TDP. I assumed wrongly that the MSRP would approximate price from third-party vendors and that any discount would be applied uniformly to all chips. However, the 4564P chip was available at a significant discount from Newegg.
Newegg has been designated as an exclusive North American retail launch partner for specific AMD EPYC series, including the AMD EPYC 4004 Series (launched in May 2024) and the newer AMD EPYC 4005 Series (launched in May 2025). This means that for a period after their initial release, Newegg (and Newegg Business) were the only retailers in North America where customers could purchase these specific EPYC processors. I bought the 4564P from Newegg for $399 not $699!! (I just double-checked the passmark site and they calculated their value comparisons with a retail price of $641.)
Figure 2: Comparison of entry level server CPUs of Intel. The AMD EPYC chips are a superior value when evaluating performance and cost relative to Intel’s offerings. Several Intel chips did not have a Passmark performance score.
Conclusion
When evaluating server processors, AMD EPYC chips consistently offer a compelling performance-to-price ratio. The AMD EPYC 4004 series, particularly the 4564P, stands out as a remarkably strong value, delivering high performance at an attractive price point. While the 4564P’s higher Thermal Design Power (TDP) does translate to increased energy consumption, the annual cost difference was nominal for my personal budget. For context, the estimated annual energy cost for the 4564P was approximately $31, compared to around $11 for the 4345P – a difference I found acceptable. However, the higher heat generation of the 4564P could be a disadvantage in dense, enterprise data center environments where thermal management is critical. For my specific application – building a first home server – this was easily mitigated. By pairing the 4564P with an efficient air cooling solution, I was able to manage the heat effectively, making it an ideal and cost-effective choice for my needs.
Disclaimer
The views, analysis and conclusions presented within this paper represent the author’s alone and not of any other person, organization or government entity. While I have made every reasonable effort to ensure that the information in this article was correct, it will nonetheless contain errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It is a working paper subject to revision without notice as additional information becomes available. Any liability is disclaimed as to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Reproducibility
─ Session info ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
setting value
version R version 4.4.0 (2024-04-24)
os macOS 15.5
system aarch64, darwin20
ui X11
language (EN)
collate en_US.UTF-8
ctype en_US.UTF-8
tz America/Chicago
date 2025-06-29
pandoc 3.2 @ /Applications/RStudio.app/Contents/Resources/app/quarto/bin/tools/aarch64/ (via rmarkdown)
─ Packages ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
package * version date (UTC) lib source
blogdown * 1.19 2024-02-01 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
bookdown 0.41 2024-10-16 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
bslib 0.8.0 2024-07-29 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
cachem 1.1.0 2024-05-16 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
cli 3.6.3 2024-06-21 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
codetools 0.2-20 2024-03-31 [2] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
colorspace 2.1-1 2024-07-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
devtools * 2.4.5 2022-10-11 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
digest 0.6.37 2024-08-19 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
dplyr 1.1.4 2023-11-17 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
ellipsis 0.3.2 2021-04-29 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
evaluate 1.0.1 2024-10-10 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
fansi 1.0.6 2023-12-08 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
fastmap 1.2.0 2024-05-15 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
fs 1.6.5 2024-10-30 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
generics 0.1.3 2022-07-05 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
ggplot2 * 3.5.1 2024-04-23 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
ggthemes * 5.1.0 2024-02-10 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
glue 1.8.0 2024-09-30 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
gtable 0.3.6 2024-10-25 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
htmltools 0.5.8.1 2024-04-04 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
htmlwidgets 1.6.4 2023-12-06 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
httpuv 1.6.15 2024-03-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
jquerylib 0.1.4 2021-04-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
jsonlite 1.8.9 2024-09-20 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
knitr 1.49 2024-11-08 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
later 1.4.1 2024-11-27 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
lifecycle 1.0.4 2023-11-07 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
magrittr 2.0.3 2022-03-30 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
memoise 2.0.1 2021-11-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
mime 0.12 2021-09-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
miniUI 0.1.1.1 2018-05-18 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
munsell 0.5.1 2024-04-01 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
pillar 1.9.0 2023-03-22 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
pkgbuild 1.4.5 2024-10-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
pkgconfig 2.0.3 2019-09-22 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
pkgload 1.4.0 2024-06-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
profvis 0.4.0 2024-09-20 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
promises 1.3.2 2024-11-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
purrr 1.0.2 2023-08-10 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
R6 2.5.1 2021-08-19 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
Rcpp 1.0.13-1 2024-11-02 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
remotes 2.5.0 2024-03-17 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
rlang 1.1.6 2025-04-11 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
rmarkdown 2.29 2024-11-04 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
rstudioapi 0.17.1 2024-10-22 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
sass 0.4.9 2024-03-15 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
scales 1.3.0 2023-11-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
sessioninfo 1.2.2 2021-12-06 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
shiny 1.10.0 2024-12-14 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
stringi 1.8.4 2024-05-06 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
stringr 1.5.1 2023-11-14 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
tibble 3.2.1 2023-03-20 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
tidyselect 1.2.1 2024-03-11 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
urlchecker 1.0.1 2021-11-30 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
usethis * 3.1.0 2024-11-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
utf8 1.2.4 2023-10-22 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
vctrs 0.6.5 2023-12-01 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
withr 3.0.2 2024-10-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
xfun 0.49 2024-10-31 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.1)
xtable 1.8-4 2019-04-21 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
yaml 2.3.10 2024-07-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.4.0)
[1] /Users/rkw/Library/R/arm64/4.4/library
[2] /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/4.4-arm64/Resources/library
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────