Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 45% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz vs 3.3 GHz More than 15% higher turbo clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.33 GHz vs 2.82 GHz Around 55% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per dollar 0.44 pt/$ vs 0.2 pt/$ Around 2.2x better performance per dollar
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,129 vs 1,774 More than 20% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.55 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel E5-2680V4

Reasons to consider the
Intel E5-2680V4

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 35 MB vs 15 MB More than 2.2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More cores 14 vs 6 8 more cores; run more applications at once
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More threads 28 vs 12 16 more threads
Supports more RAM 1,572,864 MB vs 786,432 MB Supports 2x more RAM
Significantly better PassMark score 19,922 vs 13,560 More than 45% better PassMark score
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Lower typical power consumption 97.5W vs 113.75W Around 15% lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 86 °C vs 66.7 °C Around 30% higher Maximum operating temperature
Newer Jan, 2016 vs Jul, 2014 Release date over 1 years later
Better performance per watt 2.89 pt/W vs 1.86 pt/W More than 55% better performance per watt
Lower annual home energy cost 28.91 $/year vs 33.73 $/year Around 15% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year vs 122.64 $/year Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-1650 v3 vs E5-2680V4

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5-1650 v3
9,276.5
E5-2680V4
17,418

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5-1650 v3
3,895 MB/s
E5-2680V4
3,370 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

E5-2680V4
19,922

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-1650 v3  vs
E5-2680V4 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz 3.3 GHz
Cores Hexa core Single core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AES
AVX
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 140W 120W
Annual home energy cost 33.73 $/year 28.91 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 122.64 $/year 105.12 $/year
Performance per watt 1.86 pt/W 2.89 pt/W
Typical power consumption 113.75W 97.5W

bus

Architecture QPI QPI
Number of links 0 2
Transfer rate 0 MT/s 9,600 MT/s
Clock speed 0 MHz 4,800 MHz

details

Xeon E5-1650 v3  vs
E5-2680V4 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 28
L3 cache 15 MB 35 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 2.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 1 2
Operating temperature Unknown - 66.7°C Unknown - 86°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.33 GHz 2.82 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.55 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.33 GHz 2.82 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Channels Quad Channel Quad Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum memory size 786,432 MB 1,572,864 MB
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3
Report a correction
Intel E5-2680V4
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus