EPYC 73F3 vs Xeon Gold 6256
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Gold 6256 outperforms EPYC 73F3 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 130 | 138 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 12.15 | 11.68 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | no data | Milan (2021) |
| Release date | 1 January 2020 (4 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,521 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon Gold 6256 has 4% better value for money than EPYC 73F3.
Detailed specifications
Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3 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 cores | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | no data | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 64 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3 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 configuration | no data | 2 |
| Socket | no data | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 48 | 128 |
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 6256 outperforms EPYC 73F3 by 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon Gold 6256 outperforms EPYC 73F3 by 1% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.24 | 29.81 |
| Recency | 1 January 2020 | 12 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 16 |
| Threads | 24 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 240 Watt |
Xeon Gold 6256 has a 1.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 17.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 73F3, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6256 and EPYC 73F3, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
