Xeon Platinum 8260M vs Gold 6154

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6154
2017
18 cores / 36 threads, 200 Watt
17.84
Xeon Platinum 8260M
2018
24 cores / 48 threads, 165 Watt
21.39
+19.9%

Xeon Platinum 8260M outperforms Xeon Gold 6154 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking347254
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.713.95
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon GoldIntel Xeon Platinum
Power efficiency8.4412.27
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Cascade Lake-SP (2018)
Release date11 July 2017 (7 years ago)11 December 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,543$7,705

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6154 has 19% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8260M.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M 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 cores18 (Octadeca-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads3648
Base clock speed3 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz3.9 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3024
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache24.75 MB (shared)35.75 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature82 °C90 °C
Number of transistors8,000 million8,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M 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)200 Watt165 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® 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 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size768 GB2 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 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M.

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 6154 17.84
Xeon Platinum 8260M 21.39
+19.9%

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 6154 28345
Xeon Platinum 8260M 33970
+19.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.84 21.39
Recency 11 July 2017 11 December 2018
Physical cores 18 24
Threads 36 48
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 165 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8260M has a 19.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and 21.2% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Platinum 8260M is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Gold 6154 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6154 and Xeon Platinum 8260M, 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 6154
Xeon Gold 6154
Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M
Xeon Platinum 8260M

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.


3.8 19 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6154 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 13 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8260M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6154 or Xeon Platinum 8260M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.