EPYC 8224P vs Xeon Gold 5420+
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Gold 5420+ outperforms EPYC 8224P by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 145 | 240 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.75 | 30.65 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 17.26 | 17.26 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 10 January 2023 (2 years ago) | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,848 | $855 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 8224P has 55% better value for money than Xeon Gold 5420+.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Xeon Gold 5420+ and EPYC 8224P 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 cores | 28 (Octacosa-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 56 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.55 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 52.5 MB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 73 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 84 °C | 75 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,750 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Gold 5420+ and EPYC 8224P 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 configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | 4677 | SP6 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 160 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 5420+ and EPYC 8224P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon Gold 5420+ and EPYC 8224P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 5420+ and EPYC 8224P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 5420+ and EPYC 8224P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4400 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 5420+ and EPYC 8224P.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 80 | 96 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.02 | 25.77 |
| Recency | 10 January 2023 | 18 September 2023 |
| Physical cores | 28 | 24 |
| Threads | 56 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 160 Watt |
Xeon Gold 5420+ has a 28.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 16.7% more physical cores and 16.7% more threads.
EPYC 8224P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 28.1% lower power consumption.
The Intel Xeon Gold 5420+ is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 8224P 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.
