Xeon Platinum 8454H vs Silver 4216

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Silver 4216
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 100 Watt
13.47
Xeon Platinum 8454H
2023
32 cores / 64 threads, 270 Watt
40.74
+202%

Xeon Platinum 8454H outperforms Xeon Silver 4216 by a whopping 202% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking57669
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.6210.30
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Silverno data
Power efficiency12.2813.76
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date2 April 2019 (5 years ago)10 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,002$6,540

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Silver 4216 has 71% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8454H.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H 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)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads3264
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz3.4 GHz
Multiplier21no data
L1 cache1 MB80K (per core)
L2 cache16 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache22 MB82.5 MB
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data4x 477 mm2
Maximum core temperature79 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data71 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H 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
SocketFCLGA3647FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt270 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® AMX, Intel® 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-no data
Deep Learning Boost++

Security technologies

Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR5-4800, DDR5-4400
Maximum memory size1 TB4 TB
Max memory channels68
Maximum memory bandwidth115.212 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4880

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 4216 13.47
Xeon Platinum 8454H 40.74
+202%

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 4216 20613
Xeon Platinum 8454H 62347
+202%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.47 40.74
Recency 2 April 2019 10 January 2023
Physical cores 16 32
Threads 32 64
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 270 Watt

Xeon Silver 4216 has 170% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8454H, on the other hand, has a 202.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Xeon Platinum 8454H is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Silver 4216 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Silver 4216 and Xeon Platinum 8454H, 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 4216
Xeon Silver 4216
Intel Xeon Platinum 8454H
Xeon Platinum 8454H

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.


3.3 19 votes

Rate Xeon Silver 4216 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8454H on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Silver 4216 or Xeon Platinum 8454H, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.