Xeon Platinum 8280 vs E5-2620

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2620
2012
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.43
Xeon Platinum 8280
2018
28 cores / 56 threads, 205 Watt
21.26
+520%

Platinum 8280 outperforms E5-2620 by a whopping 520% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1545254
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.731.65
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon Platinum
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EP (2012)Cascade Lake-SP (2018)
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)11 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$36$10,009

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2620 has 5% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8280.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)28 (Octacosa-Core)
Threads1256
Base clock speed2 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz4 GHz
Bus rate7.2 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data27
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache15360 KB (shared)38.5 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size435 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature77 °C84 °C
Number of transistors2,270 million8,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280 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 configuration28 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt205 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology1.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
StatusDiscontinuedLaunched
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size384 GB1 TB
Max memory channels46
Maximum memory bandwidth42.6 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4048

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 E5-2620 3.43
Xeon Platinum 8280 21.26
+520%

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 E5-2620 5291
Xeon Platinum 8280 32781
+520%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.43 21.26
Recency 6 March 2012 11 December 2018
Physical cores 6 28
Threads 12 56
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 205 Watt

Xeon E5-2620 has 115.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8280, on the other hand, has a 519.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 366.7% more physical cores and 366.7% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Platinum 8280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2620 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon Platinum 8280, 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 E5-2620
Xeon E5-2620
Intel Xeon Platinum 8280
Xeon Platinum 8280

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.


4 512 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 123 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2620 or Xeon Platinum 8280, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.