Xeon Platinum 8470 vs 3015Ce

VS

Aggregate performance score

3015Ce
2020
2 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
1.32
Xeon Platinum 8470
2023
52 cores / 104 threads, 350 Watt
56.56
+4185%

Xeon Platinum 8470 outperforms 3015Ce by a whopping 4185% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing 3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking226522
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data5.92
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)no data
Power efficiency20.8115.28
Architecture codenamePollock (Zen) (2020)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date4 August 2020 (4 years ago)10 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$9,359

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)52
Threads4104
Base clock speed1.2 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz3.8 GHz
L1 cache192 KB80K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB105 MB
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data4x 477 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data79 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data+

Compatibility

Information on 3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configurationno data2
SocketFT5FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)6 Watt350 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by 3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SMEIntel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by 3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by 3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5-4800, DDR5-4400
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 600 MHz)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by 3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data80

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

3015Ce 1.32
Xeon Platinum 8470 56.56
+4185%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

3015Ce 2099
Xeon Platinum 8470 89850
+4181%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.32 56.56
Recency 4 August 2020 10 January 2023
Physical cores 2 52
Threads 4 104
Power consumption (TDP) 6 Watt 350 Watt

3015Ce has 5733.3% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8470, on the other hand, has a 4184.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 2500% more physical cores and 2500% more threads.

The Xeon Platinum 8470 is our recommended choice as it beats the 3015Ce in performance tests.

Be aware that 3015Ce is a notebook processor while Xeon Platinum 8470 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between 3015Ce and Xeon Platinum 8470, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD 3015Ce
3015Ce
Intel Xeon Platinum 8470
Xeon Platinum 8470

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 19 votes

Rate 3015Ce on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 12 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8470 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about 3015Ce or Xeon Platinum 8470, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.