CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-2660 v3 vs E5-2640V4 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon E5-2660 v3 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5-2660 v3  based on its value.

See full details

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 E5-2660 v3

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-2660 v3

Report a correction
Much better performance per watt 13.11 pt/W vs 4.64 pt/W More than 2.8x better performance per watt
Higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 0.92 pt/$ vs 0.44 pt/$ More than 2x better performance per dollar
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.6 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel E5-2640V4

Reasons to consider the
Intel E5-2640V4

Report a correction
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Supports more RAM 1,572,864 MB vs 786,432 MB Supports 2x more RAM
Lower typical power consumption 73.13W vs 85.31W Around 15% lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2016 vs Jul, 2014 Release date over 1 years later
Lower annual home energy cost 21.68 $/year vs 25.29 $/year Around 15% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 78.84 $/year vs 91.98 $/year Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2660 v3 vs E5-2640V4

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

E5-2640V4
15,348

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-2660 v3  vs
E5-2640V4 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.3 GHz 3.4 GHz
Cores Deca core Deca 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 105W 90W
Annual home energy cost 25.29 $/year 21.68 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 91.98 $/year 78.84 $/year
Performance per watt 13.11 pt/W 4.64 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 73.13W

bus

Architecture QPI QPI
Number of links 2 2
Data rate 76,800 MB/s 64,000 MB/s
Transfer rate 9,600 MT/s 8,000 MT/s
Clock speed 4,800 MHz 4,000 MHz

details

Xeon E5-2660 v3  vs
E5-2640V4 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 20 20
L3 cache 25 MB 25 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 2.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 2 2
Operating temperature Unknown - 79°C Unknown - 76°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.6 GHz 2.4 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 E5-2660 v3
Report a correction
Intel E5-2640V4
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus