How to Save $6000 on a 28-core Flagship Intel Xeon: Platinum 8280 vs Gold 6258R
by Dr. Ian Cutress on August 7, 2020 8:00 AM ESTTest Bed and Benchmarks
For this test, we’ve run through our updated suite of benchmarks, as part of our #CPUOverload project. As this isn’t a strict review of the processors, more of a comparison article to see if they perform the same, then each benchmark is relatively binary– yes it performs the same, or no they don’t (and which one is better). For these tests, we fired up our single socket LGA3647 testbed.
| AnandTech LGA3647 Test Bed | |||||
| AnandTech | COLUMN | ||||
| CPU | Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 Intel Xeon Gold 6258R |
28C/56T 28C/56T |
2.7-4.0G 2.7-4.0G |
205W 205W |
$10009 $3950 |
| Cooling | Asetek 690LX-PN (500W) | ||||
| Motherboard | ASUS ROG Dominus Extreme (0601) | ||||
| DRAM | SKHynix 6 x 32 GB DDR4-2933 | ||||
| SSD | Crucial MX500 1TB | ||||
| PSU | EVGA 1600T2 | ||||
| GPU | Sapphire RX460 | ||||
| Chassis | Anidees Crystal XL | ||||
Both processors were tested on 192 GB of SK-Hynix DDR4-2933 RDIMMs, and a sufficient 500W liquid cooling configuration.
For non-performance benchmark related data, we saw both CPUs score the same average core-to-core latency (8280 was 45.8 ns, 6258R was 45.6 ns), both CPUs get to turbo from idle to max in 35-38 milliseconds, and power consumption was almost identical.
There is a slight variation here, though this could just be down to the specific voltage characteristics of the chips I have. The 6258R hits nearer the 205 W TDP that both chips have.
For the performance benchmarks, don’t get too excited all at once. We’ll mark any performance difference as significant where a >4% change is observed.
| Intel Xeon Scalable 2nd Gen Shootout | |||
| AnandTech | Platinum 8280 |
Gold 6258R |
Performance 6258R vs 8280 |
| Office | |||
| Agisoft 1.3 | 1867 sec | 1797 sec | 103.8% |
| AppTimer GIMP | 54.1 sec | 55.0 sec | 98.4% |
| Science | |||
| 3DPMavx | 54280 pts | 56177 pts | 103.5% |
| yCruncher 2.5b | 47.00 sec | 46.20 sec | 101.7% |
| NAMD ApoA1 | 4.42 ns/day | 4.56 ns/day | 103.2% |
| AIBench 0.1.2 | 523 pts | 521 pts | 99.6% |
| Simulation | |||
| DigiCortex 1.35 | 2.47x | 2.48x | 100.4% |
| DwarfFortress S | 124 sec | 124 sec | = |
| Dolphin 5.0 | 329 sec | 329 sec | = |
| Rendering | |||
| Blender 2.83 | 224 sec | 224 sec | = |
| Corona 1.3 | 13.30 Mray/sec | 13.64 Mray/sec | 102.6% |
| POV-Ray 3.7.1 | 10370 pts | 10461 pts | 100.8% |
| V-Ray | 36899 Kray/sec | 38366 Kray/sec | 103.98% |
| CB R20 ST | 391 pts | 393 pts | 100.5% |
| CB R20 MT | 11539 pts | 11851 pts | 102.7% |
| Encoding | |||
| Handbrake 1.3.2 4K | 74 fps | 74 fps | = |
| 7zip Combined | 183k MIPS | 189k MIPS | 103.2% |
| AES Encode | 15.9 GB/s | 16.4 GB/s | 103.1% |
| WinRAR 5.90 | 30.52 sec | 30.17 sec | 101.2% |
| Legacy / Web | |||
| CB10 ST | 8183 pts | 8185 pts | 100.02% |
| CB10 MT | 66851 pts | 66198 pts | 99.0% |
| Kraken | 929 ms | 929 ms | = |
| Speedometer | 90 rpm | 90 rpm | = |
| Synthetic | |||
| GB4 ST Overall | 4739 pts | 4737 pts | 99.95% |
| GB4 MT Overall | 65039 pts | 66274 pts | 101.9% |
| DRAM Read | 124 GB/s | 126 GB/s | 101.6% |
| DRAM Write | 102 GB/s | 102 GB/s | = |
| DRAM Copy | 115 GB/s | 116 GB/s | 100.9% |
| sha256 8k ST | 486 MB/s | 487 MB/s | 100.2% |
| sha256 8k MT | 12452 MB/s | 12833 MB/s | 103.1% |
| LinX 0.9.5 | 1484 GFLOPs | 1528 GFLOPs | 103.0% |
| SPEC (Geomean of tests, Estimated)* | |||
| SPEC2006 ST | 45.8 | 45.8 | = |
| SPEC2017 ST | 6.0 | 6.0 | = |
| SPEC2017 MT | 109.4 | 111.1 | 101.6% |
| *SPEC results not submitted to SPEC.org have to be labelled as 'Estimated' as per SPEC press licensing rules. | |||
Well, that was a whole lotta nothing.
If we retain that a 4% difference might be more than just statistical noise, then none of these benchmarks come close. A slightly blurry eye with these results might concede that the 6258R actually has the upper hand, which might go in line with the slight variation in power consumption we saw in the power test. But by and large, these chips are essentially identical in performance.
Breakdowns of most of the benchmarks and sub-tests can be found by looking at our benchmark comparison database, Bench. To get the best experience when comparing products on Bench. I find it best to increase the browser zoom and reduce the browser window width, so it looks like this:
Click on the image to go to the section in Bench that compares these two CPUs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
Krysto - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
Buy the 32-core AMD Epyc?Tomatotech - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
Nice article. I note from the CPU-Z screenshot on the first page one of the few differences is the older chip has a core speed of 997mhz with a 10x multiplier, and the the new chip is at 1097mhz with a 11x multiplier.That seems worth commenting on, but it wasn’t discussed in the article?
coschizza - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
Si the same from 10 to 40Slash3 - Thursday, August 13, 2020 - link
That's just a byproduct of an idling desktop. They'll float at low multipliers until a load is presented, and the reported frequency in each shot is, in this case, irrelevant.Spunjji - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
My biggest take-home from this:Intel's CPU naming scheme is worse than ever and needs to die in a fire.
Seriously - here we have two near-identical CPUs, the sole difference being the extent of their multi-socket capability, and the only part of their name they have in common is "Xeon".
shabby - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
Maybe its me but this just seems like a pointless article.romrunning - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
Would have been nice to see AMD's EPYC 7742 processor results with those two Xeons.eastcoast_pete - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
This is more a comment on a number of other comments here: When it comes to mission-critical servers, reliability and availability is often if not always the # 1 criterion. Not sheer processing power, or even efficiency or price. That is where AMD must invest and show commitment, and to the whole package: CPU, chip set, software support. Once the perception on Intel with Xeon always being the safer choice is gone, AMD will shift a lot more EPYCs and related products.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link
I’m glad this article made it clear that AMD doesn’t exist.I would have thought that EPYC would have been presented in the benchmarks to show the alternative to Intel competing with itself but what do so know?
Tomatotech - Saturday, August 8, 2020 - link
Guess who didn’t read the article? Especially the last paragraph?