EPYC 7742 vs Xeon Platinum 8256

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8256
2019
4 cores / 8 threads, 105 Watt
10.77
EPYC 7742
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 225 Watt
44.69
+315%

EPYC 7742 outperforms Xeon Platinum 8256 by a whopping 315% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8256 and EPYC 7742 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking73246
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.883.33
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumAMD EPYC
Power efficiency9.5318.45
Architecture codenameCascade Lake-SP (2018−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date2 April 2019 (5 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$7,007$6,950

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7742 has 77% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8256.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8256 and EPYC 7742 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads8128
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2.25 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz3.4 GHz
Multiplier3822.5
L1 cache256 KB4 MB
L2 cache4 MB32 MB
L3 cache16.5 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Maximum core temperature72 °Cno data
Number of transistors8,000 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8256 and EPYC 7742 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 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA3647TR4
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8256 and EPYC 7742. 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 8256 and EPYC 7742 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 8256 and EPYC 7742 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 8256 and EPYC 7742. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size1 TB4 TiB
Max memory channels68
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/s204.763 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 8256 and EPYC 7742.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes48no 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 8256 10.77
EPYC 7742 44.69
+315%

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 8256 16787
EPYC 7742 69663
+315%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.77 44.69
Recency 2 April 2019 7 August 2019
Physical cores 4 64
Threads 8 128
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 225 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8256 has 114.3% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7742, on the other hand, has a 314.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, 1500% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7742 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8256 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8256 and EPYC 7742, 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 8256
Xeon Platinum 8256
AMD EPYC 7742
EPYC 7742

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.


1 1 vote

Rate Xeon Platinum 8256 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 128 votes

Rate EPYC 7742 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8256 or EPYC 7742, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.