Xeon Platinum 8368 vs EPYC 7H12

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
43.84
Xeon Platinum 8368
2021
38 cores / 76 threads, 270 Watt
57.95
+32.2%

Xeon Platinum 8368 outperforms EPYC 7H12 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking4720
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency14.8220.31
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Ice Lake-SP (2021)
Release date18 September 2019 (5 years ago)6 April 2021 (3 years ago)

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368 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 cores64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)38
Threads12876
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3.4 GHz
Multiplier26no data
L1 cache96K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache256 MB (shared)57 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm10 nm
Die size192 mm2no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data83 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketTR4FCLGA4189
Power consumption (TDP)280 Watt270 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Precision Boost 2+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR4-3200
Maximum memory size4 TiB6 TB
Max memory channels88
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data64

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.

EPYC 7H12 43.84
Xeon Platinum 8368 57.95
+32.2%

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.

EPYC 7H12 69633
Xeon Platinum 8368 92054
+32.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 43.84 57.95
Recency 18 September 2019 6 April 2021
Physical cores 64 38
Threads 128 76
Chip lithography 7 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 280 Watt 270 Watt

EPYC 7H12 has 68.4% more physical cores and 68.4% more threads, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon Platinum 8368, on the other hand, has a 32.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 3.7% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Platinum 8368 is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7H12 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7H12 and Xeon Platinum 8368, 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 EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12
Intel Xeon Platinum 8368
Xeon Platinum 8368

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.


3.7 450 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 100 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8368 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7H12 or Xeon Platinum 8368, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.