Xeon Gold 6421N vs i7-9700F

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-9700F
2019
8 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
8.37
Xeon Gold 6421N
2023
32 cores / 64 threads, 185 Watt
37.15
+344%

Xeon Gold 6421N outperforms Core i7-9700F by a whopping 344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking90290
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.6844.66
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i7no data
Power efficiency12.1418.92
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake (2017−2019)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)10 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$323$2,368

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6421N has 415% better value for money than i7-9700F.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads864
Base clock speed3 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed4.7 GHz3.6 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier30no data
L1 cache512 KB80K (per core)
L2 cache2 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache12 MB (shared)60 MB
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C85 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA1151FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt185 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX++
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
SIPP+-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR5-4400
Maximum memory size128 GB4 TB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N.

PCIe version3.05
PCI Express lanes1680

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.

i7-9700F 8.37
Xeon Gold 6421N 37.15
+344%

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.

i7-9700F 13248
Xeon Gold 6421N 58797
+344%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.37 37.15
Recency 23 April 2019 10 January 2023
Physical cores 8 32
Threads 8 64
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 185 Watt

i7-9700F has 184.6% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6421N, on the other hand, has a 343.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6421N is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-9700F in performance tests.

Note that Core i7-9700F is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6421N is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-9700F and Xeon Gold 6421N, 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.


Intel Core i7-9700F
Core i7-9700F
Intel Xeon Gold 6421N
Xeon Gold 6421N

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.


4.2 670 votes

Rate Core i7-9700F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 1 vote

Rate Xeon Gold 6421N on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-9700F or Xeon Gold 6421N, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.