Xeon Gold 6244 vs Platinum 8270

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8270
2018
26 cores / 52 threads, 205 Watt
18.88
+58%
Xeon Gold 6244
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 150 Watt
11.95

Xeon Platinum 8270 outperforms Xeon Gold 6244 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking317650
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.755.22
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumIntel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency8.727.54
Architecture codenameCascade Lake-SP (2018)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date11 December 2018 (6 years ago)2 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$7,405$2,925

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6244 has 39% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8270.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244 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 cores26 (Hexacosa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads5216
Base clock speed2.7 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4.4 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2736
L1 cache64 KB (per core)512 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)8 MB
L3 cache35.75 MB (shared)24.75 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature84 °C74 °C
Number of transistors8,000 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244 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)4 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA3647FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)205 Watt150 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift++
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Turbo Boost Max 3.0--
Deep Learning Boost++

Security technologies

Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size1 TB1 TB
Max memory channels66
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4848

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 8270 18.88
+58%
Xeon Gold 6244 11.95

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 8270 29986
+58%
Xeon Gold 6244 18980

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.88 11.95
Recency 11 December 2018 2 April 2019
Physical cores 26 8
Threads 52 16
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 150 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8270 has a 58% higher aggregate performance score, and 225% more physical cores and 225% more threads.

Xeon Gold 6244, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, and 36.7% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Platinum 8270 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Gold 6244 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8270 and Xeon Gold 6244, 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 8270
Xeon Platinum 8270
Intel Xeon Gold 6244
Xeon Gold 6244

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.


5 4 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 8 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6244 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8270 or Xeon Gold 6244, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.