Xeon Gold 6314U vs Pentium G6950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Pentium G6950
2010, $60
2 cores / 2 threads, 73 Watt
0.71
Xeon Gold 6314U
2021
32 cores / 64 threads, 205 Watt
27.69
+3800%

Xeon Gold 6314U outperforms Pentium G6950 by a whopping 3800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2919211
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.0414.50
DesignerIntelIntel
ManufacturerIntelIntel
Architecture codenameClarkdale (2010−2011)Ice Lake-SP (2021)
Release date7 January 2010 (15 years ago)6 April 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$60no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U 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 cores2 (Dual-core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads264
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.4 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache3 MB (shared)48 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm10 nm
Die size81 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature73 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data81 °C
Number of transistors382 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1156FCLGA4189
Power consumption (TDP)73 Watt205 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U. 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)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size16.38 GB6 TB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth17 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HDno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanes1664

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.

Pentium G6950 0.71
Xeon Gold 6314U 27.69
+3800%

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.

Pentium G6950 1252
Samples: 87
Xeon Gold 6314U 48916
+3807%
Samples: 5

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.71 27.69
Recency 7 January 2010 6 April 2021
Physical cores 2 32
Threads 2 64
Chip lithography 32 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 73 Watt 205 Watt

Pentium G6950 has 180.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6314U, on the other hand, has a 3800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.

The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Pentium G6950 in performance tests.

Note that Pentium G6950 is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6314U is a server/workstation one.

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 Pentium G6950
Pentium G6950
Intel Xeon Gold 6314U
Xeon Gold 6314U

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.


2.8 71 votes

Rate Pentium G6950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon Gold 6314U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Pentium G6950 and Xeon Gold 6314U, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.