EPYC 9274F vs Xeon Platinum 8280

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8280
2019
28 cores / 56 threads, 205 Watt
21.03
EPYC 9274F
2022
24 cores / 48 threads, 320 Watt
47.20
+124%

EPYC 9274F outperforms Xeon Platinum 8280 by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8280 and EPYC 9274F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26442
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.6511.96
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon PlatinumAMD EPYC
Power efficiency9.5313.70
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)$10,009$3,060

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9274F has 625% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8280.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8280 and EPYC 9274F 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 cores28 (Octacosa-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads5648
Base clock speed2.7 GHz4.05 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4.05 GHz
Multiplier2740.5
L1 cache1.75 MB1536 KB
L2 cache28 MB24 MB
L3 cache38.5 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 8280 and EPYC 9274F 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 8280 and EPYC 9274F. 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 8280 and EPYC 9274F 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 8280 and EPYC 9274F 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 8280 and EPYC 9274F. 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 8280 and EPYC 9274F.

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 8280 21.03
EPYC 9274F 47.20
+124%

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 8280 32781
EPYC 9274F 73582
+124%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.03 47.20
Recency 2 April 2019 10 November 2022
Physical cores 28 24
Threads 56 48
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 320 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8280 has 16.7% more physical cores and 16.7% more threads, and 56.1% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9274F, on the other hand, has a 124.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9274F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8280 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8280 and EPYC 9274F, 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 8280
Xeon Platinum 8280
AMD EPYC 9274F
EPYC 9274F

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.


2.2 124 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 7 votes

Rate EPYC 9274F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8280 or EPYC 9274F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.