Test 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.

Platinum 8280 vs Gold 6258R Does the 6258R make sense for Intel?
POST A COMMENT

82 Comments

View All Comments

  • Duncan Macdonald - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link

    It is probably the same silicon - just with a fuse blown to disable the UPI link and restrict it to 2 sockets. Reply
  • Krysto - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link

    Buy the 32-core AMD Epyc? Reply
  • 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?
    Reply
  • coschizza - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link

    Si the same from 10 to 40 Reply
  • Slash3 - 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. Reply
  • 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".
    Reply
  • shabby - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link

    Maybe its me but this just seems like a pointless article. Reply
  • romrunning - Friday, August 7, 2020 - link

    Would have been nice to see AMD's EPYC 7742 processor results with those two Xeons. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now