Intel Xeon E5-2689 vs E5 1650 v2 |
Released March, 2012
Intel Xeon E5-2689
- 2.6 GHz
- Octa core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5-2689
 | Much more l3 cache 20 MB | | More l2 cache 2 MB |
| | More threads 16 | | Lower typical power consumption 93.44W |
VS
Released July, 2013
Intel Xeon E5 1650 v2
- 3.5 GHz
- Hexa core
Reasons to buy the E5 1650 v2
| | Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz | | Newer manufacturing process 22 nm |
| | Newer Jul, 2013 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l3 cache | 20 MB | vs | 12 MB | More than 65% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 1.5 MB | Around 35% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| More threads | 16 | vs | 12 | 4 more threads | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 93.44W | vs | 105.63W | More than 10% lower typical power consumption | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 25% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 100.74 $/year | vs | 113.88 $/year | More than 10% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 27.7 $/year | vs | 31.32 $/year | More than 10% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher clock speed | 3.5 GHz | vs | 2.6 GHz | Around 35% higher clock speed | |||
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 32 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2013 | vs | Mar, 2012 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2689 vs E5 1650 v2
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5-2689 | vs | E5 1650 v2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Cores | Octa core | Hexa core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 2011 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| F16C | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
details | Xeon E5-2689 | vs | E5 1650 v2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 16 | 12 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1.5 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 20 MB | 12 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 115W | 130W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 27.7 $/year | 31.32 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 100.74 $/year | 113.88 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 10.97 pt/W | 13.53 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 93.44W | 105.63W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | QPI | |
| Number of links | 2 | 0 | |
| Transfer rate | 8,000 MT/s | 0 MT/s | |
 Intel Xeon E5-2689  Report a correction |  Intel Xeon E5 1650 v2 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $2,086 | ||
| E5-2689 vs E5-2690 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $1,155 | ||
| E5-2689 vs 2650 v2 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $262 | ||
| E5-2689 vs E5-2620 v3 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | ||
| E5-2689 vs 6700K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $901 | ||
| E5-2689 vs E5-2640 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $1,650 | ||
| E5-2689 vs E5-2670 v3 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $583 | $583 | |
| 1650 v2 vs E5-1650 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS | |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
