Xeon D-2795NT vs Platinum 8253

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8253
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 125 Watt
18.44
Xeon D-2795NT
2022
20 cores / 40 threads, 110 Watt
18.64
+1.1%

Xeon D-2795NT outperforms Xeon Platinum 8253 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking336332
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.11no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Platinumno data
Power efficiency13.4215.42
Architecture codenameCascade Lake-SP (2018−2019)no data
Release date2 April 2019 (5 years ago)1 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,115no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT 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)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads3240
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.1 GHz
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache1 MBno data
L2 cache16 MBno data
L3 cache22 MB (shared)30 MB
Chip lithography14 nm10 nm
Maximum core temperature87 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)87 °Cno data
Number of transistors8,000 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT 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)no data
SocketFCLGA3647FCBGA2579
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt110 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT. 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+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
QuickAssistno data+
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX+-
Thermal Monitoring-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Deep Learning Boost++

Security technologies

Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR4
Maximum memory size1 TB1 TB
Max memory channels64
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes4832
USB revisionno data3.0
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data24
Number of USB portsno data4
Integrated LANno data+

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 18.44
Xeon D-2795NT 18.64
+1.1%

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
Xeon D-2795NT 28463
+1.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.44 18.64
Recency 2 April 2019 1 January 2022
Physical cores 16 20
Threads 32 40
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 110 Watt

Xeon D-2795NT has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 25% more physical cores and 25% more threads, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 13.6% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8253 and Xeon D-2795NT, 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
Intel Xeon D-2795NT
Xeon D-2795NT

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

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon D-2795NT 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 Xeon D-2795NT, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.