EPYC 7643P vs Xeon Gold 6258R

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6258R
2020
28 cores / 56 threads, 205 Watt
25.34
EPYC 7643P
2023
48 cores / 96 threads, 225 Watt
43.23
+70.6%

EPYC 7643P outperforms Xeon Gold 6258R by an impressive 71% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6258R and EPYC 7643P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19550
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.0213.01
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Goldno data
Power efficiency11.7018.18
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date24 February 2020 (4 years ago)5 September 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,950$2,722

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6258R has 8% better value for money than EPYC 7643P.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6258R and EPYC 7643P 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 cores28 (Octacosa-Core)48 (Octatetraconta-Core)
Threads5696
Base clock speed2.7 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.6 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier27no data
L1 cache1.75 MB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache28 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache38.5 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die sizeno data8x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature74 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data33,200 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6258R and EPYC 7643P 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 configurationno data1
SocketFCLGA3647SP3
Power consumption (TDP)205 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6258R and EPYC 7643P. 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+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6258R and EPYC 7643P 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 6258R and EPYC 7643P 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 6258R and EPYC 7643P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR4
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 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 6258R and EPYC 7643P.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes48128

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 6258R 25.34
EPYC 7643P 43.23
+70.6%

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 6258R 40252
EPYC 7643P 68675
+70.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 25.34 43.23
Recency 24 February 2020 5 September 2023
Physical cores 28 48
Threads 56 96
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 225 Watt

Xeon Gold 6258R has 9.8% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7643P, on the other hand, has a 70.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 71.4% more physical cores and 71.4% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7643P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Gold 6258R in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6258R and EPYC 7643P, 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 6258R
Xeon Gold 6258R
AMD EPYC 7643P
EPYC 7643P

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 20 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6258R on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 7643P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6258R or EPYC 7643P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.