Ryzen 5 8400F vs Xeon Gold 6336Y

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6336Y
2021
24 cores / 48 threads, 185 Watt
29.20
+89.7%
Ryzen 5 8400F
2024
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
15.39

Xeon Gold 6336Y outperforms Ryzen 5 8400F by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking160462
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data59.75
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency14.6621.99
Architecture codenameIce Lake-SP (2021)Phoenix (2023−2024)
Release date6 April 2021 (3 years ago)1 April 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$170

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads4812
Base clock speed2.4 GHz4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz4.7 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache36 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography10 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)80 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA4189AM5
Power consumption (TDP)185 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F. 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+-
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
SGXYes with Intel® SPSno data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR5
Maximum memory size6 TBno data
Max memory channels8no 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 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F.

PCIe version4.04.0
PCI Express lanes6420

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 6336Y 29.20
+89.7%
Ryzen 5 8400F 15.39

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 6336Y 45517
+89.8%
Ryzen 5 8400F 23983

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.20 15.39
Recency 6 April 2021 1 April 2024
Physical cores 24 6
Threads 48 12
Chip lithography 10 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 185 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon Gold 6336Y has a 89.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Ryzen 5 8400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 184.6% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Gold 6336Y is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 8400F in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon Gold 6336Y is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 8400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6336Y and Ryzen 5 8400F, 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 6336Y
Xeon Gold 6336Y
AMD Ryzen 5 8400F
Ryzen 5 8400F

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.


4.7 9 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6336Y on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 212 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 8400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6336Y or Ryzen 5 8400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.