Xeon Gold 6252 vs D-1541

Aggregate performance score

Xeon D-1541
2015
8 cores / 16 threads, 45 Watt
6.34
Xeon Gold 6252
2019
24 cores / 48 threads, 150 Watt
17.09
+170%

Xeon Gold 6252 outperforms Xeon D-1541 by a whopping 170% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1055370
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.767.12
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon DIntel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency13.3310.78
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date1 November 2015 (9 years ago)2 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$581$3,655

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6252 has 158% better value for money than Xeon D-1541.

Detailed specifications

Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252 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)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads1648
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0DMI 3.0
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2121
L1 cache64K (per core)1.5 MB
L2 cache256K (per core)24 MB
L3 cache1.5 MB (per core)35.75 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size246.24 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data86 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)80 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252 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)4 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1667FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt150 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
GPIO+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4, DDR3DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size128 GB1 TB
Max memory channels26
Maximum memory bandwidth38.397 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252.

PCIe version2.0/3.03.0
PCI Express lanes2448
USB revision2.0/3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports6no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN+no data
UART+no data

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.

Xeon D-1541 6.34
Xeon Gold 6252 17.09
+170%

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.

Xeon D-1541 10064
Xeon Gold 6252 27148
+170%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.34 17.09
Recency 1 November 2015 2 April 2019
Physical cores 8 24
Threads 16 48
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 150 Watt

Xeon D-1541 has 233.3% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6252, on the other hand, has a 169.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6252 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon D-1541 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon D-1541 and Xeon Gold 6252, 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 Xeon D-1541
Xeon D-1541
Intel Xeon Gold 6252
Xeon Gold 6252

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.


4.8 4 votes

Rate Xeon D-1541 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 9 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6252 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon D-1541 or Xeon Gold 6252, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.