Xeon Gold 6254 vs Athlon PRO 300GE
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Gold 6254 outperforms Athlon PRO 300GE by a whopping 644% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1964 | 382 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.16 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Athlon | Intel Xeon Gold |
| Power efficiency | 7.54 | 9.82 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Zen+ (2018−2019) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 30 September 2019 (6 years ago) | 2 April 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,803 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Athlon PRO 300GE and Xeon Gold 6254 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 18 (Octadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 36 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 34 | 31 |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 1.125 MB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 18 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 24.75 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 82 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4950 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon PRO 300GE and Xeon Gold 6254 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 4 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | Socket AM4 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon PRO 300GE and Xeon Gold 6254. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon PRO 300GE and Xeon Gold 6254 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 Athlon PRO 300GE and Xeon Gold 6254 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 Athlon PRO 300GE and Xeon Gold 6254. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 140.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon PRO 300GE and Xeon Gold 6254.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 48 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.46 | 18.31 |
| Recency | 30 September 2019 | 2 April 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 18 |
| Threads | 4 | 36 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 200 Watt |
Athlon PRO 300GE has an age advantage of 5 months, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 471.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon Gold 6254, on the other hand, has a 644.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 800% more physical cores and 800% more threads.
The Intel Xeon Gold 6254 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon PRO 300GE in performance tests.
Note that Athlon PRO 300GE is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6254 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
