Xeon Platinum 8268 vs Silver 4110

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Silver 4110
2017
8 cores / 16 threads, 85 Watt
6.43
Xeon Platinum 8268
2018
24 cores / 48 threads, 205 Watt
21.71
+238%

Xeon Platinum 8268 outperforms Xeon Silver 4110 by a whopping 238% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1049240
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.135.57
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon SilverIntel Xeon Platinum
Power efficiency7.1610.02
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Cascade Lake-SP (2018)
Release date11 July 2017 (7 years ago)11 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$501$6,302

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Silver 4110 has 10% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8268.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads1648
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.9 GHz
Multiplier2129
L1 cache512 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache8 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache11 MB35.75 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature77 °C84 °C
Number of transistorsno data8,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)8 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA3647FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt205 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268. 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 Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size768 GB1 TB
Max memory channels66
Maximum memory bandwidth115.212 GB/s140.8 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 Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268.

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 Silver 4110 6.43
Xeon Platinum 8268 21.71
+238%

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 Silver 4110 10220
Xeon Platinum 8268 34483
+237%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.43 21.71
Recency 11 July 2017 11 December 2018
Physical cores 8 24
Threads 16 48
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 205 Watt

Xeon Silver 4110 has 141.2% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8268, on the other hand, has a 237.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

The Xeon Platinum 8268 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Silver 4110 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Silver 4110 and Xeon Platinum 8268, 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 Silver 4110
Xeon Silver 4110
Intel Xeon Platinum 8268
Xeon Platinum 8268

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.


3.7 18 votes

Rate Xeon Silver 4110 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 58 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8268 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Silver 4110 or Xeon Platinum 8268, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.