CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-4640 v2 vs E5-2699 v3 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

5.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon E5-4640 v2 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v2  based on its cost to run.

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 E5-4640 v2

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-4640 v2

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 117.81W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 vs 2 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 127.02 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year vs 34.93 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 45 MB vs 20 MB 2.2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much higher turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Around 35% higher turbo clock speed
More threads 36 vs 20 16 more threads
Much better performance per watt 10.09 pt/W vs 0.98 pt/W More than 10.2x better performance per watt
Higher clock speed 2.3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz Around 5% higher clock speed
More l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 25% more l3 cache per core
Newer Jul, 2014 vs Jan, 2014 Release date 6 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-4640 v2 vs E5-2699 v3

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 E5-4640 v2
103.35 MB/s
Xeon E5-2699 v3
2,980,000 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-4640 v2  vs
E5-2699 v3 
Clock speed 2.2 GHz 2.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.7 GHz 3.6 GHz
Cores Deca core Processing Cores

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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
DDR3-800
DDR
Channels Quad Channel Quad Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 59,733.32 MB/s 6,400 MB/s
Maximum memory size 786,432 MB 786,432 MB

details

Xeon E5-4640 v2  vs
E5-2699 v3 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 20 36
L3 cache 20 MB 45 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 4 2
Operating temperature Unknown - 75°C Unknown - 76.4°C

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

power consumption

TDP 95W 145W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 34.93 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 127.02 $/year
Performance per watt 0.98 pt/W 10.09 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 117.81W

bus

Architecture QPI QPI
Number of links 2 2
Data rate 64,000 MB/s 76,800 MB/s
Transfer rate 8,000 MT/s 9,600 MT/s
Clock speed 4,000 MHz 4,800 MHz
Intel Xeon E5-4640 v2
Report a correction
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus