Xeon Platinum 8256 vs Gold 6128

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6128
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 115 Watt
7.96
Xeon Platinum 8256
2018
4 cores / 8 threads, 105 Watt
10.57
+32.8%

Xeon Platinum 8256 outperforms Xeon Gold 6128 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking937733
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.181.71
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon GoldIntel Xeon Platinum
Power efficiency6.559.53
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Cascade Lake-SP (2018)
Release date25 April 2017 (7 years ago)11 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,697$7,007

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6128 has 27% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8256.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads128
Base clock speed3.4 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz3.9 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3438
L1 cache384 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache6 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache19.25 MB16.5 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature74 °C72 °C
Number of transistorsno data8,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256 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 configuration4 (Multiprocessor)8 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA3647FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift++
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Turbo Boost Max 3.0--
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size768 GB1 TB
Max memory channels66
Maximum memory bandwidth128.001 GB/s140.8 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 Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4848

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 Gold 6128 7.96
Xeon Platinum 8256 10.57
+32.8%

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 Gold 6128 12648
Xeon Platinum 8256 16787
+32.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.96 10.57
Recency 25 April 2017 11 December 2018
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 12 8
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 105 Watt

Xeon Gold 6128 has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

Xeon Platinum 8256, on the other hand, has a 32.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 9.5% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Platinum 8256 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Gold 6128 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6128 and Xeon Platinum 8256, 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 Gold 6128
Xeon Gold 6128
Intel Xeon Platinum 8256
Xeon Platinum 8256

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 7 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6128 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 6 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8256 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6128 or Xeon Platinum 8256, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.