SKU: 94670528336

HPE Intel Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) 6246 Dodeca-core (12 Core) 3.30 GHz Processor Upgrade

$2492.24 $2769.15
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on sm10m.ch >

Pay in installments of $692.29 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 29 - Sep 3

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

HPE Intel Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) 6246 Dodeca-core (12 Core) 3.30 GHz Processor UpgradeElevate your HPE server performance with the HPE Intel Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) 6246 processor upgrade. This 12 core, 24 thread powerhouse is engineered for data intensive workloads, virtualization, and high concurrency environments that demand consistent, reliable throughput. With a base clock of 3. 30 GHz and turbo capability up to 4. 20 GHz, this upgrade helps servers tackle demanding workloads more efficiently while maintaining solid power and thermal

Elevate your HPE server performance with the HPE Intel Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) 6246 processor upgrade. This 12-core, 24-thread powerhouse is engineered for data-intensive workloads, virtualization, and high-concurrency environments that demand consistent, reliable throughput. With a base clock of 3.30 GHz and turbo capability up to 4.20 GHz, this upgrade helps servers tackle demanding workloads more efficiently while maintaining solid power and thermal behavior in modern data centers. Built on a 14 nm process, featuring a generous 24.75 MB L3 cache and 64-bit processing, the Xeon Gold 6246 is designed to deliver resilient performance for latency-sensitive operations, from large-scale database queries to virtual machine provisioning and analytics pipelines. The Socket 3647 interface ensures compatibility with select HPE systems, providing an upgrade path without changing motherboards. A 165 W TDP underscores its readiness for enterprise-class server deployments where peak performance is balanced with reliability and predictable power delivery.

When organizations seek to maximize consolidation, improve virtualization density, or accelerate data analytics, the Xeon Gold 6246 delivers measurable gains. The processor supports robust multi-threading, enabling more concurrent tasks to run in parallel, which translates to faster provisioning, smoother live migrations, and enhanced responsiveness during peak operation windows. Its engineering combines Intel’s advanced instruction set capabilities with enterprise-grade reliability features that data centers rely on for uptime-sensitive services. For IT teams, this means fewer bottlenecks, improved service levels, and the potential to extend the life of aging servers by unlocking additional headroom without a full platform refresh. With 24 threads at your disposal, you can run multiple virtual machines, containers, or workloads side by side with confidence in consistent performance.

Designed for the rigors of modern enterprise workloads, this Xeon Gold upgrade delivers a balance of raw speed and steady power delivery. The 3.30 GHz base clock provides strong single-thread performance, while Turbo Boost to 4.20 GHz accelerates burst workloads, gaming-like responsiveness for data-center tasks, and smooth handling of complex clustering operations. The substantial 24.75 MB L3 cache helps reduce latency by keeping frequently accessed data close to the cores, which is particularly beneficial for cache-sensitive databases, in-memory analytics, and real-time processing. The 14 nm manufacturing process and 165 W design ensure consistent performance under load while remaining compatible with enterprise-grade cooling and power infrastructure. In server environments where uptime, predictability, and efficiency matter, the Xeon Gold 6246 stands as a robust upgrade option that can drive tangible improvements across many workloads.

  • 12-Core, 24-Thread Powerhouse: Optimized for multi-threaded workloads, virtualization, and data analytics with sustained throughput to keep imperfectly parallel tasks moving efficiently.
  • Massive 24.75 MB L3 Cache: Reduces memory latency and accelerates large datasets and complex instruction pipelines for faster data access and smoother analytics.
  • Socket 3647 Compatibility: Designed for upgrading compatible HPE servers, enabling higher performance without changing motherboard form factors or major platform components.
  • 14 nm Process, 165 W TDP: A balanced design that prioritizes reliable performance and stable thermals in enterprise environments, supporting sustained workloads.
  • Turbo Boost to 4.20 GHz: Delivers rapid clock speeds for burst workloads while maintaining 64-bit processing for modern software ecosystems and virtualization workloads.

Technical Details of HPE Intel Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) 6246 Processor

  • Model: Intel Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) 6246
  • Cores / Threads: 12 cores / 24 threads
  • Base Clock: 3.30 GHz
  • Max Turbo Frequency: 4.20 GHz
  • L3 Cache: 24.75 MB
  • Manufacturing Process: 14 nm
  • Socket: Socket 3647
  • TDP: 165 W
  • 64-bit Processing: Yes

How to install HPE Intel Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) 6246

Before installation, verify system compatibility with Socket 3647 and Xeon Gold 6246 support for your specific HPE server model. Power down the server, unplug all power sources, and ground yourself to prevent static discharge. Open the server chassis following the manufacturer’s service manual and locate the processor socket area. Align Pin 1 with the socket orientation for Socket 3647, then carefully seat the 6246 into the socket, applying even pressure until the socket lever locks into place. If your cooling solution requires thermal interface material, apply a thin, even layer as recommended by the cooler manufacturer and reseat the heatsink/fan assembly firmly. Reconnect all power connections and perform a POST to verify basic hardware recognition. Enter the BIOS/UEFI to confirm CPU detection, ensure the latest microcode is loaded, and check memory compatibility. Install any recommended BIOS updates or microcode patches supplied by your server vendor to enable full feature support for the Xeon Gold 6246. After updating firmware, boot into the operating system and monitor CPU utilization and temperature during light and peak load scenarios to confirm stable operation. For virtualization or memory-intensive workloads, ensure adequate cooling capacity and a power supply that can sustain elevated loads, as the 165 W TDP reflects peak thermal design requirements rather than idle consumption. Finally, validate system performance with representative workloads to confirm the upgrade delivers the expected improvements in throughput, latency, and overall server responsiveness.

Frequently asked questions

  • Q: Is the HPE Intel Xeon Gold 6246 compatible with my server? A: Compatibility depends on support for Socket 3647 and Xeon Gold (2nd Gen) processors in your specific HPE server model. Confirm with your server documentation or HPE support to ensure your system model and BIOS support accommodate this upgrade.
  • Q: What performance improvements can I expect? A: Expect enhanced multi-threaded throughput, improved virtualization density, faster data analytics, and better responsiveness for concurrent tasks due to the 12-core, 24-thread configuration, large L3 cache, and higher turbo speeds.
  • Q: Do I need to update BIOS or microcode? A: Yes. For optimal operation and full feature support, apply the latest BIOS and CPU microcode updates from HPE or Intel as recommended for your server model.
  • Q: Can I overclock this processor? A: Enterprise Xeon processors typically do not support user-initiated overclocking. Turbo frequencies are managed by the CPU and cooling system, and overclocking is generally not supported on Xeon Gold 6246 in standard server configurations.
  • Q: What cooling and power considerations should I plan for? A: With a 165 W TDP, ensure your server’s cooling solution and power supply are rated to sustain peak loads during virtualization or database workloads. Proper airflow and thermal management help maintain performance and longevity.
Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 94670528336

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.3 ★★★★★
Based on 25 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
F
Verified Purchase
Frederick S. Goethel
Whiting, US
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document. The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies. Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010
G
Verified Purchase
garynini
Grantham, US
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015
C
Verified Purchase
Chris Morton
Cuba, US
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Cuba, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
Lowell, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010

recommand products

DESIGNER BOOKS - FRAMED BRUSHED CANVAS WALL DECOR
110.00
RUSTY CHUBBY CHOOK DUO
89.00
Single Lotus Flower Lamp - Green - Mosaic Stained Glass - Leadlight
109.97
ARTISAN DESIGNED - HANGING PLANTER - MIAMI
89.95
DESIRING COUNTRY WELL WATER FOUNTAIN FEATURE
110.00