Xeon Gold 6254 vs Atom C3538

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom C3538
2017, $75
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.09
Xeon Gold 6254
2019, $3,803
18 cores / 36 threads, 200 Watt
18.52
+1599%

Xeon Gold 6254 outperforms Atom C3538 by a whopping 1599% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2665402
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.042.04
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel AtomIntel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency3.073.91
DesignerIntelIntel
Architecture codenameGoldmont (2016−2017)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date15 August 2017 (8 years ago)2 April 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$75$3,803

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6254 has 5000% better value for money than Atom C3538.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Atom C3538 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)18 (Octadeca-Core)
Threads436
Base clock speed2.1 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2131
L1 cache224 KB1.125 MB
L2 cache8 MB18 MB
L3 cache8 MB24.75 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature87 °C82 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Atom C3538 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)4 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1310FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3538 and Xeon Gold 6254. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
QuickAssist+no data
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Atom C3538 and Xeon Gold 6254 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB++
Secure Boot+no data
SGX-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3538 and Xeon Gold 6254 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3538 and Xeon Gold 6254. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4: 2133DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size256 GB1 TB
Max memory channels26
Maximum memory bandwidth29.871 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3538 and Xeon Gold 6254.

PCIe version33.0
PCI Express lanes1248
USB revision3no data
Total number of SATA ports12no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN2x10/2.5/1 GBE + 2x2.5/1 GBEno data

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.

Atom C3538 1.09
Xeon Gold 6254 18.52
+1599%

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.

Atom C3538 1910
Samples: 5
Xeon Gold 6254 32183
+1585%
Samples: 22

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.

Atom C3538 255
Xeon Gold 6254 1348
+429%

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.

Atom C3538 895
Xeon Gold 6254 10429
+1065%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.09 18.52
Recency 15 August 2017 2 April 2019
Physical cores 4 18
Threads 4 36
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 200 Watt

Atom C3538 has 1233% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6254, on the other hand, has a 1599% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 350% more physical cores and 800% more threads.

The Intel Xeon Gold 6254 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Atom C3538 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


1.5 2 votes

Rate Atom C3538 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 18 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6254 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Atom C3538 and Xeon Gold 6254, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.