EPYC 9174F vs Xeon Platinum 8270

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8270
2019
26 cores / 52 threads, 205 Watt
18.88
EPYC 9174F
2022
16 cores / 32 threads, 320 Watt
34.93
+85%

EPYC 9174F outperforms Xeon Platinum 8270 by an impressive 85% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8270 and EPYC 9174F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking312105
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.846.73
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumAMD EPYC
Power efficiency8.7210.33
Architecture codenameCascade Lake-SP (2018−2019)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date2 April 2019 (5 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$7,405$3,850

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9174F has 75% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8270.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8270 and EPYC 9174F 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 cores26 (Hexacosa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads5232
Base clock speed2.7 GHz4.1 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4.1 GHz
Multiplier2741
L1 cache1.625 MB1 MB
L2 cache26 MB16 MB
L3 cache35.75 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die sizeno data8x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature84 °Cno data
Number of transistors8,000 million52,560 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8270 and EPYC 9174F 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)205 Watt320 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8270 and EPYC 9174F. 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 8270 and EPYC 9174F 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 8270 and EPYC 9174F 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 8270 and EPYC 9174F. 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 8270 and EPYC 9174F.

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 8270 18.88
EPYC 9174F 34.93
+85%

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 8270 29986
EPYC 9174F 55485
+85%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.88 34.93
Recency 2 April 2019 10 November 2022
Physical cores 26 16
Threads 52 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 320 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8270 has 62.5% more physical cores and 62.5% more threads, and 56.1% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9174F, on the other hand, has a 85% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9174F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8270 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8270 and EPYC 9174F, 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 8270
Xeon Platinum 8270
AMD EPYC 9174F
EPYC 9174F

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.


5 4 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 3 votes

Rate EPYC 9174F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8270 or EPYC 9174F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.