Hetzner continues to offer powerful dedicated servers targeting professionals and businesses requiring high-performance infrastructure. Two of their standout offerings are the AS162 and the EX130. The AS162 features the AMD EPYC 9454P, while the EX130 comes with the Intel Xeon Gold 5412U. Both are high-end CPUs from their respective server ranges, equipped with similar hardware specifications beyond the CPU. This article compares these two servers in terms of pricing, configuration, and CPU performance, with a view to evaluating which provides better value and utility depending on your intended use.
Hetzner AS162 vs EX130 Price Comparison
The pricing structure between these two server configurations reveals notable differences that extend beyond the initial monthly cost. The EX130 starts at €160 / £134 monthly for the base configuration, positioning it as the more affordable option for organisations seeking enterprise-grade performance without the premium associated with the highest-tier processors.
The AX162 commands €238 / £200 monthly, reflecting the additional cores and enhanced capabilities of the EPYC architecture. This price differential of approximately £66 monthly translates to nearly £800 annually, making the cost consideration substantial for budget-conscious deployments.
Both servers require a €94/ £79 setup fee, which represents more than half a month’s cost for the EX130 and approximately 40% of the cost for the AX162. This setup cost should be factored into first-year calculations, particularly for short-term deployments.
The pricing structure becomes more complex when considering upgrade paths. The AX162-R supports memory expansion up to 1,152GB, whilst the EX130-R caps at 768GB. For organisations planning significant memory upgrades, the AX162-R’s superior expandability may justify the higher base cost over time.
Hetzner AS162 vs EX130 Options
The AS162 series offers two primary configurations: the AS162-R and AS162-S variants. The AS162-R prioritises memory capacity with 256 GB DDR5 ECC RAM paired with 2×1.92 TB NVMe SSDs, making it suitable for memory-intensive applications. The AS162-S variant shifts focus towards storage capacity, featuring 2×3.84 TB NVMe SSDs with 128 GB RAM, targeting applications with rapidly growing storage requirements.
Similarly, the EX130 series provides EX130-R and EX130-S configurations. The EX130-R mirrors the AS162-R approach with 256 GB DDR5 ECC RAM and 2×1.92 TB NVMe storage, whilst the EX130-S offers increased storage capacity with 2×3.84 TB drives and 128 GB RAM. This parallel configuration approach allows direct comparison between AMD and Intel platforms with equivalent resource allocations.
Memory expansion options differ significantly between the platforms. The EX130’s 768GB maximum may prove limiting for memory-intensive workloads such as large database operations or extensive virtualisation deployments. The AX162’s 1,152GB capacity provides substantially more headroom for future growth.
Both systems include standard enterprise features such as DDoS protection, redundant networking, and comprehensive management tools through Hetzner’s Robot interface. The inclusion of IPv6 support and VLAN capabilities through vSwitch functionality ensures compatibility with modern networking requirements.
AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5412U Specification Comparison
Processor Architecture and Design Philosophy
AX162’s AMD EPYC 9454P
- Chiplet Architecture: Uses 5nm/6nm process technology with 48 physical cores (96 threads) organised across multiple dies. This design enhances core density and parallel processing capabilities .
- Memory and Cache: Features 12 memory channels supporting DDR5-4800 ECC RAM, with a 256MB L3 cache. This benefits memory-intensive applications like in-memory databases .
- I/O Advantages: Provides 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes, enabling high-speed storage and network expansions .
EX130’s Intel Xeon Gold 5412U
- Monolithic Design: Manufactured on Intel 7nm process with 24 cores (48 threads). Its unified die reduces latency for single-threaded operations .
- Specialised Extensions: Supports Intel AMX (Advanced Matrix Extensions) for AI/ML acceleration and DL Boost, optimising tensor workloads .
- Memory Configuration: 8-channel DDR5-4400 ECC RAM with 45MB L3 cache, balancing bandwidth and power efficiency .
Specification Comparison
| Feature | AMD EPYC 9454P | Intel Xeon Gold 5412U |
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96 | 20 / 40 |
| Base Clock | 2.75 GHz | 2.0 GHz |
| Max Boost Clock | Up to 3.8 GHz | Up to 3.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB | 37.5 MB |
| TDP | 290 W | 185 W |
| Manufacturing Process | 5 nm | 10 nm |
| Memory Support | 12-channel DDR5 | 8-channel DDR5 |
The EPYC 9454P is clearly the more capable CPU on paper, with more than double the core count, significantly more L3 cache, and higher base clock speeds. It’s designed for compute-heavy environments and excels in high-thread-count workloads.
The Xeon Gold 5412U is no slouch either, but its 20 cores and 40 threads suggest it’s more of a mid-to-high-tier solution suited to general-purpose hosting and enterprise use cases.
Performance Benchmarks
Synthetic Workloads
- Multi-threaded Throughput: The EPYC 9454P dominates with a PassMark score of 95,852—83% higher than the Xeon’s 52,218 . This advantage stems from its higher core count and larger L3 cache (256MB vs 45MB) .
- Single-threaded Tasks: Intel’s Xeon achieves a marginally higher PassMark single-thread rating (3,074 vs 2,993), benefiting latency-sensitive operations .
- Energy Efficiency: Despite higher TDP, the EPYC delivers 19.83 points per watt versus Intel’s 16.94, making it more efficient under full load .
Real-World Applications
- Virtualisation: AMD’s 96 threads handle 30% more concurrent VMs, verified in user tests involving Kubernetes clusters .
- Database Workloads: PostgreSQL benchmarks show the AX162 completes batch inserts 40% faster, though the EX130 exhibits lower query latency for transactional systems .
- Media Encoding: FFmpeg tests favour the EPYC for 4K video rendering (48% faster), while Intel’s QuickSync optimisations benefit real-time streaming .
AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5412U Performance Comparison
AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5412U Single Core
Single-core performance remains relevant despite the growing importance of multi-threaded execution. Many legacy applications, scripting languages, and database queries are not fully optimised for parallelism and thus depend heavily on individual core speed.
The Intel Xeon Gold 5412U, with its higher instructions per cycle (IPC) and mature microarchitecture, handles single-threaded tasks more effectively than the EPYC 9454P. Benchmarks involving PHP scripts, Python automation, and SQL query execution tend to reflect this advantage.
That said, the gap is not so wide that it renders the AMD processor unsuitable for general-purpose use. Most modern applications are increasingly designed to leverage multiple cores, meaning the relative disadvantage in single-threaded performance becomes less critical over time.
For organisations prioritising low-latency operations or those relying on older codebases that lack parallelisation, the EX130-R may still offer better responsiveness. However, if the majority of workloads involve scalable processes, the AS162-R’s superior multi-core capabilities may outweigh concerns about single-threaded execution.
AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5412U Multi Core
Where the AMD EPYC 9454P truly shines is in its ability to manage large numbers of concurrent threads. With 48 physical cores and 96 logical threads , it can sustain extremely high levels of parallel computation. This is particularly useful in environments such as:
- Virtualisation platforms (Proxmox, VMware, KVM)
- Container orchestration (Kubernetes, Docker Swarm)
- Batch processing and ETL jobs
- High-performance computing (HPC) simulations
- Video transcoding and media rendering
The increased cache size further enhances performance by reducing the need for frequent memory access, which helps maintain high throughput even under sustained load. Additionally, the support for PCIe 5.0 allows for faster data transfer rates between the CPU and attached devices, improving I/O-bound operations.
By comparison, the Intel Xeon Gold 5412U, while capable of supporting multithreaded applications, does so with fewer resources. Its 24 cores and 48 threads limit its scalability in situations where maximum throughput is required. Although it performs adequately for many business applications, it cannot match the raw computational density offered by the EPYC 9454P.
AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5412U for a website hosting server (CPanel, Plesk etc)
Web hosting environments present unique performance requirements that favour different aspects of each processor architecture. Traditional web hosting with CPanel or Plesk typically involves numerous small processes serving individual websites, making both processors viable options with distinct advantages.
The EPYC 9454P’s higher core count provides excellent isolation for shared hosting environments. Each website or application can be allocated dedicated cores, reducing the impact of resource-intensive sites on others sharing the server. This isolation becomes particularly valuable in high-density hosting scenarios.
For hosting providers managing hundreds of small to medium websites, the additional cores allow for better resource distribution and improved performance consistency. The larger cache also helps with frequently accessed content, reducing database queries and improving response times.
The Intel Xeon Gold 5412U’s strong single-threaded performance benefits websites with limited parallelisation or those running older content management systems. Many WordPress sites and traditional web applications perform well on processors with strong per-core performance rather than high core counts.
Database performance for web hosting often depends on single-threaded capabilities, where the Intel processor’s higher boost clocks can provide advantages. MySQL and PostgreSQL databases frequently benefit more from fast individual cores than from numerous slower cores.
AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5412U for virtualisation (Proxmox, VMware, and Hyper-V)
Virtualisation platforms such as Proxmox, VMware, and Hyper-V represent ideal use cases for the EPYC 9454P’s architecture. The high core count allows for efficient resource allocation across multiple virtual machines whilst maintaining performance isolation.
The 48 cores of the EPYC processor enable hosting significantly more virtual machines compared to the 24-core Intel alternative. For organisations planning dense virtualisation deployments, this difference can substantially impact licensing costs and hardware efficiency.
Memory bandwidth becomes crucial in virtualisation scenarios, where multiple virtual machines compete for system resources. The EPYC processor’s superior memory bandwidth helps prevent bottlenecks when running memory-intensive virtual machines simultaneously.
However, the Intel processor’s strong single-threaded performance benefits virtual machines running applications that cannot effectively utilise multiple cores. Legacy systems or specialised applications may perform better on the Intel platform despite the lower total core count.
The choice between processors for virtualisation often depends on the intended virtual machine density and the types of workloads being virtualised. High-density environments with numerous small virtual machines favour the AMD approach, whilst environments with fewer, more performance-critical virtual machines may benefit from Intel’s architecture.
Price vs Performance Analysis
The price-to-performance ratio between these servers varies significantly depending on workload characteristics and utilisation patterns. For highly parallel workloads that can effectively utilise the EPYC processor’s 48 cores, the AX162-R provides superior value despite the higher monthly cost.
The £84 monthly premium for the AX162-R translates to approximately £1.75 per additional core compared to the EX130-R. This cost per core becomes more attractive when considering the performance advantages in multi-threaded scenarios.
However, for workloads that cannot effectively utilise the additional cores, the EX130-R presents better value. The strong single-threaded performance and lower operational costs make it suitable for many enterprise applications without the premium associated with high core counts.
Long-term considerations include power consumption and cooling costs. The EPYC processor’s higher TDP results in increased operational expenses that should be factored into total cost of ownership calculations. Data centre environments with limited cooling capacity may find the Intel processor more suitable.
Reliability Considerations
Recent user reports regarding the AX162 series raise concerns about hardware reliability that potential customers should consider. Multiple users have reported unexpected system crashes and hardware failures with the newer AX162 servers, suggesting potential issues with the platform’s maturity.
These reliability concerns appear specific to the AX162 series rather than the EPYC processor itself, indicating possible integration or quality control issues with Hetzner’s implementation. Users report random reboots and complete system failures requiring hardware replacement.
In contrast, the EX130 series appears to maintain better reliability records based on user feedback. The more established Intel platform and longer deployment history may contribute to improved stability and fewer unexpected issues.
For production environments where uptime is critical, these reliability considerations may outweigh pure performance advantages. The cost of unexpected downtime often exceeds any performance benefits, making reliability a primary selection criterion.
Use Case Alignment
AX162 Excels In:
- High-Performance Computing: Molecular dynamics simulations leverage its 96 threads and AVX-512 extensions.
- Big Data Analytics: Spark clusters process larger datasets in memory, aided by 460.8 GB/s bandwidth .
- Content Delivery Networks: The 12 memory channels efficiently manage concurrent video streams.
EX130 Advantages For:
- Legacy Enterprise Applications: Single-threaded proprietary software benefits from Intel’s higher clock speeds.
- AI Inference: AMX instructions accelerate image recognition workloads by up to 30% .
- Cost-Sensitive Virtualisation: Lower entry cost suits SMBs hosting <50 VMs.
Overall
The choice between Hetzner’s AX162-R and EX130-R servers ultimately depends on specific workload requirements, budget constraints, and reliability priorities. The AX162-R with its AMD EPYC 9454P processor excels in highly parallel workloads, offering substantial performance advantages for applications that can effectively utilise multiple cores.
The EX130-R provides a more balanced approach with strong single-threaded performance, lower operational costs, and apparently better reliability. For many enterprise applications, particularly those with limited parallelisation requirements, the Intel-based server offers better value.
Organisations planning virtualisation deployments or running highly parallel applications will likely benefit from the AX162-R’s additional cores and memory bandwidth. However, those prioritising cost efficiency and reliability may find the EX130-R more suitable for their requirements.
The reliability concerns surrounding the AX162 series should be carefully considered, particularly for production environments. Until these issues are resolved, the EX130-R may represent the safer choice despite potentially lower peak performance in specific scenarios.
Both servers provide excellent value compared to traditional enterprise hardware, with Hetzner’s competitive pricing making either option attractive for organisations seeking dedicated server performance without the premium typically associated with enterprise-grade hardware.
Educational Background
Armed with a BSc in Computer Science, Paul combines theoretical knowledge with hands-on expertise. His academic background serves as a robust foundation, enabling him to dissect complex networking topics and present them in a way that's both insightful and easy to grasp.
Professional Journey
Over the years, Paul has cultivated a platform that's not just about reviews or news; it's a comprehensive guide for anyone looking to navigate the intricate maze of computer networking. Whether you're a seasoned IT professional or a curious beginner, you'll find a wealth of information here, meticulously researched and objectively presented.
Personal Interests
But hey, it's not all wires and signals for Paul. When he's not buried in specs sheets or testing the latest networking gear, you'll likely find him globetrotting, exploring new cultures and landscapes. A fitness enthusiast at heart, Paul enjoys a good run or a cycling session to clear his mind. He believes that a healthy body fuels a healthy mind, which in turn, contributes to better quality work.
Why Follow Paul?
So, why should you pay attention to what Paul has to say? Well, it's simple. His reviews and articles are grounded in objective data, ensuring that you get an unbiased perspective. Plus, his knack for breaking down complicated subjects into digestible pieces makes even the most daunting of networking tasks seem achievable.
In a world where technology is ever-evolving, having a reliable source to guide you through the complexities of computer networking is invaluable. And that's precisely what Paul McMillon brings to the table.