Xeon Platinum 8268 vs Opteron 6278

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Opteron 6278
2012
16 cores / 16 threads, 115 Watt
8.65
Xeon Platinum 8268
2018
24 cores / 48 threads, 205 Watt
21.71
+151%

Xeon Platinum 8268 outperforms Opteron 6278 by a whopping 151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Opteron 6278 and Xeon Platinum 8268 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking882245
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data5.50
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon Platinum
Power efficiency7.089.97
Architecture codenameInterlagos (2011−2012)Cascade Lake-SP (2018)
Release date1 May 2012 (12 years ago)11 December 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$6,302

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Opteron 6278 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads1648
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3.9 GHz
Multiplierno data29
L1 cache768 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache16 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache8 MB (per die)35.75 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size316 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data84 °C
Number of transistors2,400 million8,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Opteron 6278 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 configuration48 (Multiprocessor)
SocketG34FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt205 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 6278 and Xeon Platinum 8268. 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++
FMA+-
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Opteron 6278 and Xeon Platinum 8268 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 6278 and Xeon Platinum 8268 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 6278 and Xeon Platinum 8268. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2933
Maximum memory sizeno data1 TB
Max memory channelsno data6
Maximum memory bandwidthno data140.8 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 Opteron 6278 and Xeon Platinum 8268.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data48

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.

Opteron 6278 8.65
Xeon Platinum 8268 21.71
+151%

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.

Opteron 6278 13733
Xeon Platinum 8268 34483
+151%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.65 21.71
Recency 1 May 2012 11 December 2018
Physical cores 16 24
Threads 16 48
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 205 Watt

Opteron 6278 has 78.3% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8268, on the other hand, has a 151% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Platinum 8268 is our recommended choice as it beats the Opteron 6278 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 6278 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.


AMD Opteron 6278
Opteron 6278
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.


3.4 17 votes

Rate Opteron 6278 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 Opteron 6278 or Xeon Platinum 8268, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.