EPYC 9135 vs Xeon Platinum 8253

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8253
2018
16 cores / 32 threads, 125 Watt
17.73
EPYC 9135
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 200 Watt
36.56
+106%

EPYC 9135 outperforms Xeon Platinum 8253 by a whopping 106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking35196
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.0629.29
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Platinumno data
Power efficiency13.4217.30
Architecture codenameCascade Lake-SP (2018)Turin (2024)
Release date11 December 2018 (6 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,115$1,214

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9135 has 263% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8253.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9135 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads3232
Base clock speed2.2 GHz3.65 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz4.3 GHz
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache22 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data2x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature87 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)87 °Cno data
Number of transistors8,000 million16,630 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9135 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
SocketFCLGA3647SP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9135. 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 Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9135 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 8253 and EPYC 9135 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 8253 and EPYC 9135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5
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 cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9135.

PCIe version3.05.0
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 8253 17.73
EPYC 9135 36.56
+106%

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 8253 28165
EPYC 9135 58070
+106%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.73 36.56
Recency 11 December 2018 10 October 2024
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 200 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8253 has 60% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 106.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8253 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9135, 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 8253
Xeon Platinum 8253
AMD EPYC 9135
EPYC 9135

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon Platinum 8253 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9135 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8253 or EPYC 9135, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.