EPYC 7643 vs Xeon Platinum 8260

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8260
2018
24 cores / 48 threads, 165 Watt
19.10
EPYC 7643
2021
48 cores / 96 threads, 225 Watt
47.88
+151%

EPYC 7643 outperforms Xeon Platinum 8260 by a whopping 151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8260 and EPYC 7643 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30239
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.116.37
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumAMD EPYC
Power efficiency10.9520.14
Architecture codenameCascade Lake-SP (2018)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date11 December 2018 (5 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,702$4,995

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7643 has 4% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8260.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8260 and EPYC 7643 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)48 (Octatetraconta-Core)
Threads4896
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz3.6 GHz
Multiplier2423
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache35.75 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm+
Die sizeno data8x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors8,000 million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8260 and EPYC 7643 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
SocketFCLGA3647SP3
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8260 and EPYC 7643. 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
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Platinum 8260 and EPYC 7643 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 8260 and EPYC 7643 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 8260 and EPYC 7643. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size1 TB4 TiB
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/s204.795 GB/s
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 8260 and EPYC 7643.

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 8260 19.10
EPYC 7643 47.88
+151%

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 8260 30347
EPYC 7643 76050
+151%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.10 47.88
Recency 11 December 2018 15 March 2021
Physical cores 24 48
Threads 48 96
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 225 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8260 has 36.4% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7643, on the other hand, has a 150.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7643 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8260 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8260 and EPYC 7643, 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 8260
Xeon Platinum 8260
AMD EPYC 7643
EPYC 7643

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.


2.9 14 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.2 232 votes

Rate EPYC 7643 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8260 or EPYC 7643, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.