EPYC 9224 vs Xeon Platinum 8253

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8253
2018
16 cores / 32 threads, 125 Watt
17.73
EPYC 9224
2022
24 cores / 48 threads, 200 Watt
26.72
+50.7%

EPYC 9224 outperforms Xeon Platinum 8253 by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking344180
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.2411.98
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumAMD EPYC
Power efficiency13.4212.64
Architecture codenameCascade Lake-SP (2018)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date11 December 2018 (5 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,115$1,825

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9224 has 45% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8253.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads3248
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.7 GHz
Multiplier2225
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache22 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die sizeno data4x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature87 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)87 °Cno data
Number of transistors8,000 million26,280 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224 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 configuration8 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketFCLGA3647SP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224. 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++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224 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 Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size1 TB6 TiB
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/s460.8 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes48128

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 Platinum 8253 17.73
EPYC 9224 26.72
+50.7%

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 Platinum 8253 28165
EPYC 9224 42448
+50.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.73 26.72
Recency 11 December 2018 10 November 2022
Physical cores 16 24
Threads 32 48
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 200 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8253 has 60% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9224, on the other hand, has a 50.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9224 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8253 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8253 and EPYC 9224, 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 Platinum 8253
Xeon Platinum 8253
AMD EPYC 9224
EPYC 9224

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon Platinum 8253 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate EPYC 9224 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8253 or EPYC 9224, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.