CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 2697 v2 vs 2695 v2 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

5.5

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon E5 2695 v2 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5 2695 v2  based on its cost to run and 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 2697 v2

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5 2697 v2

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz Around 10% higher turbo clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.42 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Xeon E5 2695 v2

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5 2695 v2

Report a correction
Lower typical power consumption 93.44W vs 105.63W More than 10% lower typical power consumption
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.19 GHz vs 3.11 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5 2697 v2 vs 2695 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

Xeon E5 2697 v2
2,320,000 MB/s
Xeon E5 2695 v2
1,545,000 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5 2697 v2  vs
2695 v2 
Clock speed 2.7 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.2 GHz
Cores Dodeca core Dodeca core
Socket type
LGA 2011
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 130W 115W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 27.7 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 100.74 $/year
Performance per watt 9.11 pt/W 10.43 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 93.44W

bus

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

details

Xeon E5 2697 v2  vs
2695 v2 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 24 24
L2 cache 3 MB 3 MB
L3 cache 30 MB 30 MB
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 2 2
Clock multiplier 27 24
Operating temperature Unknown - 86°C Unknown - 81°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.11 GHz 3.19 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.42 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.11 GHz 3.19 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
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
Channels Quad Channel Quad Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 59,733.32 MB/s 59,733.32 MB/s
Maximum memory size 786,432 MB 786,432 MB
Intel Xeon E5 2697 v2
Report a correction
Intel Xeon E5 2695 v2
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus