Intel Xeon 6724P vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6724P and Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 are two server processors separated by a full platform generation, yet they land remarkably close in overall average benchmark score. The Xeon 6724P posts an average benchmark score of 72,396, while the Xeon Platinum 8270 sits at 71,370, a difference of just 1.4%. Both sit in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Despite the near-identical overall averages, the individual workloads tell a story of two very different architectures. The 6724P wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, but the two losses are significant and reveal where the older chip still holds its ground.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the sheer scale of the 6724P's wins in compute-heavy tasks. In Cinebench, the 6724P is consistently about 52.8% ahead across every single test — R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 6724P scores 43,643 against the 8270's 28,561. The single-core R23 result is similarly lopsided: 6,161 versus 4,032. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in per-clock and per-core efficiency.

The PassMark suite amplifies this further. In PassMark multi-thread, the 6724P scores 51,345, a 71.2% advantage over the 8270's 29,986. The physics test shows an even wider gulf: 5,004 versus 903, a 454.2% delta. That is the single largest margin in the entire comparison. Floating point math also favors the new chip heavily, with the 6724P at 135,404 versus 99,432, a 36.2% lead. Integer math is closer but still a win for the 6724P, 172,216 versus 160,322, a 7.4% margin.

Encryption and prime number finding are where the 6724P truly demolishes the older part. PassMark data encryption shows a 290.2% advantage for the 6724P (34,332 versus 8,798), and find prime numbers is even more extreme at 342.9% (372 versus 84). These results point to much stronger cryptographic instructions and integer throughput on the newer architecture.

The 8270 fights back in exactly two areas, both memory-latency or bandwidth-sensitive: data compression and random string sorting. In PassMark data compression, the 8270 scores 728,144 versus 627,185, a 13.9% win. In random string sorting, it scores 80,208 versus 68,477, a 14.6% win. These are not trivial workloads, but they are narrow. The 8270 also edges out in extended instructions by a small margin? No — the data shows the 6724P wins that one, 54,101 versus 51,191, a 5.7% lead. The 8270's only wins are the two memory-heavy tests.

Single-thread performance is a clean sweep for the 6724P. It scores 3,279 in PassMark single-thread versus 2,325, a 41% lead. That gap is consistent with the Cinebench single-core results, which show a 52.7% delta in R15. For workloads that are not perfectly parallelized, the newer chip is the clear choice.

The Verdict

The data makes a straightforward case: the Intel Xeon 6724P is the superior processor for almost every compute task. It is 52.8% faster in Cinebench multi-core, 71.2% faster in PassMark multi-thread, and 41% faster in single-thread. The only two tests where it loses are data compression and random string sorting, where the 8270 holds a 13.9% and 14.6% edge, respectively. If your primary workloads are rendering, scientific computing, encryption, or general multi-threaded throughput, the 6724P is the obvious pick.

However, the 8270 is not without a niche. If your application is dominated by data compression or string sorting, the older chip is faster. The 8270 also offers more cores (26 versus 16) and more threads (52 versus 32), which may matter for highly parallel, memory-latency-bound tasks that do not scale with clock speed. But the benchmark data shows that the 6724P's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the core deficit in most cases. The 8270's wins are narrow; the 6724P's wins are often multiples.

For a new deployment, the 6724P is the rational choice. For an existing 8270 platform, upgrading is justified unless your workload is specifically the two tests where the older chip wins. The 6724P also carries a launch MSRP of $3622, which is a data point you can use for budget planning, but the performance per dollar is not something we can assess from the given figures. The verdict is simple: 15 wins versus 2 wins tells you everything you need to know.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design eras. The 6724P is built on Granite Rapids architecture, specifically the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation, fabricated on Intel's 5 nm process node. The 8270 is a Cascade Lake-SP part, using Intel's 14 nm process. That node difference is the root cause of the performance gap — a newer process allows higher clocks at similar or lower power.

Clock speeds reflect this. The 6724P has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The 8270 operates at a 2.70 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The 6724P's base clock is 0.9 GHz higher, and its boost clock is 0.3 GHz higher. This explains the massive single-thread advantage.

Core counts go the other way. The 8270 has 26 cores and 52 threads, while the 6724P has 16 cores and 32 threads. The 8270 has 10 more cores and 20 more threads. Yet the 6724P still wins multi-threaded tests by wide margins, indicating that per-core performance and memory bandwidth more than compensate for the core deficit.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The 6724P has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a 72 MB shared L3 cache. The 8270 has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 35.75 MB shared L3. The 6724P has more than double the L3 cache, which helps with data-heavy workloads. The 8270's smaller cache may contribute to its wins in compression and sorting, where a larger core count can parallelize memory access.

Memory support is another generational split. The 6724P uses DDR5 with an eight-channel memory bus and 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The 8270 uses DDR4, with no memory bus or bandwidth figures listed in the data. The 6724P's memory bandwidth is likely a major factor in its encryption and prime number performance. Both support ECC memory. The 6724P also has PCIe Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only), while the 8270 has no PCIe data listed.

The 6724P is built for Socket 4710, while the 8270 uses Socket 3647. These are not cross-compatible, so a platform change is mandatory to upgrade. The 8270 has 8,000 million transistors, while the 6724P does not list a transistor count. The 6724P is an active production part, released in 2025, while the 8270 has no production status listed and was released in 2018. The thermal design power is similar — 210 W for the 6724P and 205 W for the 8270 — despite the 8270 having more cores.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6724P is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 43,643 versus 28,561, a 52.8% lead. PassMark multi-thread shows a 71.2% advantage (51,345 versus 29,986).

Q: Does the 8270 ever beat the 6724P?

A: Yes, in two specific tests. The 8270 wins PassMark data compression by 13.9% (728,144 versus 627,185) and random string sorting by 14.6% (80,208 versus 68,477).

Q: How much better is single-thread performance on the 6724P?

A: The 6724P is 41% faster in PassMark single-thread (3,279 versus 2,325) and 52.7% faster in Cinebench R15 single-core (620 versus 406).

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 has 26 cores and 52 threads, while the 6724P has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite this, the 6724P wins most multi-threaded tests.

Q: What are the cache differences?

A: The 6724P has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 72 MB shared L3. The 8270 has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 35.75 MB shared L3.

Q: Are they on the same socket?

A: No. The 6724P uses Intel Socket 4710, while the 8270 uses Intel Socket 3647. They are not interchangeable.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6724P is the dominant choice for a wide range of compute-intensive tasks. It wins all Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) by roughly 52.8%, making it the clear pick for rendering, simulation, and any workload that relies on multi-core CPU performance. It also wins PassMark multi-thread by 71.2%, floating point math by 36.2%, and integer math by 7.4%. For security and cryptography, the 6724P is vastly superior: data encryption shows a 290.2% lead, and find prime numbers a 342.9% lead. Single-thread performance is also a 41% win, which helps with lightly threaded applications and general responsiveness. The 6724P also has the edge in extended instructions (5.7%) and physics (454.2%). If you are running a database, a render farm, or a scientific compute cluster, this is the CPU.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 wins in exactly two areas: data compression and random string sorting. Data compression shows a 13.9% lead, and random string sorting a 14.6% lead. These are memory-latency-sensitive workloads that benefit from the 8270's higher core count (26 versus 16) and perhaps its DDR4 memory architecture. If your workload is heavily dependent on compression algorithms or sorting large datasets in memory, the older chip is faster. That is a narrow but real niche. The 8270 also has more threads, which may help in extremely parallel, low-compute tasks that do not benefit from the 6724P's higher clocks.

For everything else, the 6724P is the winner. The 15-to-2 win count is decisive. The 8270's wins are not enough to recommend it for general server duty, but for specialized memory-heavy workloads, it holds a measurable advantage. The 6724P's launch MSRP is $3622, but no pricing data is available for the 8270, so a direct cost comparison is not possible from the given information.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between these two CPUs are extensive and align with their generational gap. The 6724P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the 8270 has 26 cores and 52 threads. The 6724P has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz; the 8270 has a 2.70 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The 6724P runs at 210 W TDP, while the 8270 is 205 W.

They are built on different process nodes — 5 nm for the 6724P and 14 nm for the 8270. The 6724P uses Granite Rapids architecture, while the 8270 uses Cascade Lake. The 6724P has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 72 MB shared L3. The 8270 has 64 KB L1, 1 MB L2, and 35.75 MB shared L3. The 8270 lists 8,000 million transistors; the 6724P has no transistor count listed.

Memory support diverges completely: the 6724P uses DDR5 with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the 8270 uses DDR4 with no bus or bandwidth data. Both support ECC memory. The 6724P has PCIe Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only); the 8270 has no PCIe data. The sockets differ: Socket 4710 for the 6724P versus Socket 3647 for the 8270. The 6724P was released in 2025 and is an active production part; the 8270 was released in 2018 with no production status listed. The 6724P has a launch MSRP of $3622; the 8270 has no MSRP listed. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier.