EPYC 8024P vs Xeon Gold 6148

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6148
2017
20 cores / 40 threads, 150 Watt
18.61
+41.1%
EPYC 8024P
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 90 Watt
13.19

Xeon Gold 6148 outperforms EPYC 8024P by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking325583
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.5220.42
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Goldno data
Power efficiency11.5213.61
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Siena (2023−2024)
Release date25 April 2017 (7 years ago)18 September 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,072$409

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 8024P has 270% better value for money than Xeon Gold 6148.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P 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 cores20 (Icosa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads4016
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache1.25 MB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache20 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache27.5 MB32 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm
Die sizeno data73 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data75 °C
Number of transistorsno data8,875 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P 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 configuration4 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA3647SP6
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt90 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR5
Maximum memory size768 GBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth128.001 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4896

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 Gold 6148 18.61
+41.1%
EPYC 8024P 13.19

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 Gold 6148 29009
+41.1%
EPYC 8024P 20556

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.61 13.19
Recency 25 April 2017 18 September 2023
Physical cores 20 8
Threads 40 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 90 Watt

Xeon Gold 6148 has a 41.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 150% more physical cores and 150% more threads.

EPYC 8024P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Gold 6148 is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 8024P in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6148 and EPYC 8024P, 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 Gold 6148
Xeon Gold 6148
AMD EPYC 8024P
EPYC 8024P

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.


3.9 18 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6148 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 8024P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6148 or EPYC 8024P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.