Xeon Gold 6238 vs E5-2680 v3

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v3
2014
12 cores / 24 threads, 120 Watt
9.53
Xeon Gold 6238
2019
22 cores / 44 threads, 140 Watt
18.05
+89.4%

Xeon Gold 6238 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v3 by an impressive 89% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking794333
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data10.82
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency7.5212.20
Architecture codenameHaswell-EP (2014−2015)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date8 September 2014 (10 years ago)2 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,612

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)22 (Docosa-Core)
Threads2444
Base clock speed2.5 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rate9.6 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data21
L1 cache64K (per core)1.375 MB
L2 cache256K (per core)22 MB
L3 cache30 MB (shared)30.25 MB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size356 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature85 °C92 °C
Number of transistors5,560 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238 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 configuration24 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt140 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size768 GB1 TB
Max memory channels46
Maximum memory bandwidth68 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238.

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 E5-2680 v3 9.53
Xeon Gold 6238 18.05
+89.4%

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 E5-2680 v3 15130
Xeon Gold 6238 28668
+89.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.53 18.05
Recency 8 September 2014 2 April 2019
Physical cores 12 22
Threads 24 44
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 140 Watt

Xeon E5-2680 v3 has 16.7% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6238, on the other hand, has a 89.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 83.3% more physical cores and 83.3% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Gold 6238 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2680 v3 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v3 and Xeon Gold 6238, 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 E5-2680 v3
Xeon E5-2680 v3
Intel Xeon Gold 6238
Xeon Gold 6238

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.


4.4 1051 vote

Rate Xeon E5-2680 v3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 5 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6238 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2680 v3 or Xeon Gold 6238, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.