EPYC 7401P vs Xeon Gold 6230
Aggregated performance score
EPYC 7401P outperforms Xeon Gold 6230 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 321 | 291 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 10.53 | 35.74 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon Gold | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 2 April 2019 (5 years old) | 29 June 2017 (6 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,894 | $1,075 |
| Current price | $1847 (1x MSRP) | $212 (0.2x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7401P has 239% better value for money than Xeon Gold 6230.
Technical specs
Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P 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 | 20 (Icosa-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 40 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus support | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 1.25 MB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 20 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 27.5 MB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 87 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P 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 | 4 (Multiprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA3647 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 170 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
| Status | Launched | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 1 TB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 6 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 140.8 GB/s | 170.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 48 | 128 |
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.
EPYC 7401P outperforms Xeon Gold 6230 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 7401P outperforms Xeon Gold 6230 by 5% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon Gold 6230 outperforms EPYC 7401P by 19% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon Gold 6230 outperforms EPYC 7401P by 75% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 17.51 | 18.30 |
| Recency | 2 April 2019 | 29 June 2017 |
| Physical cores | 20 | 24 |
| Threads | 40 | 48 |
| Cost | $1894 | $1075 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 170 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6230 and EPYC 7401P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
