PRO A10-9700E vs Xeon Gold 6342

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6342
2021
24 cores / 48 threads, 230 Watt
26.87
+1435%

Xeon Gold 6342 outperforms PRO A10-9700E by a whopping 1435% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2302260
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency4.932.11
DesignerIntelAMD
ManufacturerIntelGlobalFoundries
Architecture codenameIce Lake-SP (2021)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date6 April 2021 (4 years ago)3 October 2016 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads484
Base clock speed2.8 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)2048 KB
L3 cache36 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography10 nm28 nm
Die sizeno data250 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)81 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data3,100 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA4189AM4
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
PowerTune-+
TrueAudio-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
Out-of-band client management-+
VirusProtect-+
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
SGXYes with Intel® SPSno data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR4-2400
Maximum memory size6 TBno data
Max memory channels82
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core countno data6
Enduro-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E.

PCIe version4.03.0
PCI Express lanes648

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.

Xeon Gold 6342 26.87
+1435%
PRO A10-9700E 1.75

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.

Xeon Gold 6342 47076
+1437%
Samples: 5
PRO A10-9700E 3063
Samples: 82

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 26.87 1.75
Recency 6 April 2021 3 October 2016
Physical cores 24 4
Threads 48 4
Chip lithography 10 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 35 Watt

Xeon Gold 6342 has a 1435.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

PRO A10-9700E, on the other hand, has 557.1% lower power consumption.

The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD PRO A10-9700E in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon Gold 6342 is a server/workstation processor while PRO A10-9700E is a desktop one.

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 6342
Xeon Gold 6342
AMD PRO A10-9700E
PRO A10-9700E

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 14 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6342 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 16 votes

Rate PRO A10-9700E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Xeon Gold 6342 and PRO A10-9700E, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.