CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-4650L vs E5-2680 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

No winner declared

Too close to call

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 E5-4650L

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-4650L

Report a correction
Lower typical power consumption 93.44W vs 105.63W More than 10% lower typical power consumption
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 vs 2 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
Front view of Intel Xeon E5-2680

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-2680

Report a correction
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,774 vs 1,367 Around 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3.1 GHz Around 15% higher turbo clock speed
Much better performance per watt 7.63 pt/W vs 2.77 pt/W More than 2.8x better performance per watt
Higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 2.6 GHz Around 5% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.14 GHz vs 2.79 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.5 GHz vs 2.6 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-4650L vs E5-2680

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5-4650L
11,821
Xeon E5-2680
19,922

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-4650L  vs
E5-2680 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.1 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Octa core Octa 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
MMX
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 2.77 pt/W 7.63 pt/W
Typical power consumption 93.44W 105.63W

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 E5-4650L  vs
E5-2680 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 16 16
L2 cache 2 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 20 MB 20 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 2.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 4 2
Voltage range 0.6 - 1.35V 0.6 - 1.35V

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.79 GHz 3.14 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz 3.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.79 GHz 3.14 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
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
DDR3-800
Channels Quad Channel Quad Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 51,200 MB/s 51,200 MB/s
Maximum memory size 393,216 MB 393,216 MB
Intel Xeon E5-4650L
Report a correction
Intel Xeon E5-2680
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus