EPYC 7262 vs Xeon Platinum 8153

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8153
2017
16 cores / 32 threads, 125 Watt
20.26
+54.9%
EPYC 7262
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 155 Watt
13.08

Xeon Platinum 8153 outperforms EPYC 7262 by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking278580
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.3310.02
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumAMD EPYC
Power efficiency15.347.99
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date25 April 2017 (7 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,115$575

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7262 has 58% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8153.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads3216
Base clock speed2 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.4 GHz
Multiplier2032
L1 cache1 MB96 KB (per core)
L2 cache16 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache22 MB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Maximum core temperature87 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data3,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262 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 configuration8 (Multiprocessor)2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA3647SP3
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262. 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 Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262 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 Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262 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 Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size768 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels68
Maximum memory bandwidth128.001 GB/s204.763 GB/s
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 Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262.

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 Platinum 8153 20.26
+54.9%
EPYC 7262 13.08

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 Platinum 8153 32180
+54.9%
EPYC 7262 20779

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.26 13.08
Recency 25 April 2017 7 August 2019
Physical cores 16 8
Threads 32 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 155 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8153 has a 54.9% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 24% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7262, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Platinum 8153 is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7262 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8153 and EPYC 7262, 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 Platinum 8153
Xeon Platinum 8153
AMD EPYC 7262
EPYC 7262

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 3 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8153 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 21 vote

Rate EPYC 7262 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8153 or EPYC 7262, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.